samxiao Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Hello all, I'm testing out BT Sync in a corporate environment for efficiently transfer files across different DC. I found that untick "use_relay_server" and "use_tracker" doesn't work even for our VLAN setup. Is it possible to setup our own tracker and relay server? If yes, how do we do that? We choose BT Sync because we believe it's truly private, but it seems that we still need to connect with upstream tracker and relay server to get this working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erenoglu Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 You can enable lan sync and put static hostnames and ports as an alternative. This way you won't need DHT, Relay or Tracker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samxiao Posted November 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Can the static hostnames be in a range? I have about ~200 VM instances and they could have different IP and I will not know in advance. You can enable lan sync and put static hostnames and ports as an alternative. This way you won't need DHT, Relay or Tracker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erenoglu Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 But can't you know their dns hostnames? Those you can add to the folder properties. ie like vm1.mydomain.com etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samxiao Posted November 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 so you mean having all ~200 VM map to a dns hostname?sorry, new to the IT/network side of the thing. :-) But can't you know their dns hostnames? Those you can add to the folder properties. ie like vm1.mydomain.com etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatMarko Posted November 17, 2013 Report Share Posted November 17, 2013 Is it possible to setup our own tracker and relay server? If yes, how do we do that? It's not currently possible to run your own relay/tracker servers for Sync as such - this will likely be a feature that's implemented in the "business grade"/"enterprise" edition of Sync. You can, however, use the pre-defined hosts options within Sync to list the IPs of your known devices to allow connection without needing to go via Sync's relay/tracker servers. However, this assumes that direct connections can be established between the IPs you list. If direct connections cannot be established, Sync will fallback to using its relay/tracker to establish connections. Essentially, if all your devices are on the same subnet of the same LAN, you should be able to establish direct connections between them. If you can't, it's likely an issue with your router/firewall setup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samxiao Posted November 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 Under "known_hosts", can you put the range of the IP?Like 192.168.1.1/24 ? It's not currently possible to run your own relay/tracker servers for Sync as such - this will likely be a feature that's implemented in the "business grade"/"enterprise" edition of Sync. You can, however, use the pre-defined hosts options within Sync to list the IPs of your known devices to allow connection without needing to go via Sync's relay/tracker servers. However, this assumes that direct connections can be established between the IPs you list. If direct connections cannot be established, Sync will fallback to using its relay/tracker to establish connections. Essentially, if all your devices are on the same subnet of the same LAN, you should be able to establish direct connections between them. If you can't, it's likely an issue with your router/firewall setup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatMarko Posted November 19, 2013 Report Share Posted November 19, 2013 Under "known_hosts", can you put the range of the IP?Like 192.168.1.1/24 ? I don't believe so - you have to list individual IP addresses (or hostnames), rather than IP ranges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peva3 Posted November 19, 2013 Report Share Posted November 19, 2013 Under "known_hosts", can you put the range of the IP?Like 192.168.1.1/24 ? I don't believe so - you have to list individual IP addresses (or hostnames), rather than IP ranges To make this a whole lot easier just use this:http://www.ipaddresslocation.org/ip-address-ranges.php I tested it out with a IP block I own and it seemed to work fine. Just put 192.168.1.1/24 (for instance) and it will spit out a list of all the IPs. Copy that and either use a script that will add the ports to the end or enter them by hand and then just paste that list to all your VMs. I'm in a similar boat to you (as far as your goal to have a custom tracker/relay), but at the moment this seems like the best way to go about it. For the time being it might actually be more secure this way because all the nodes will only be able to connect to the specified IPs (of course that is if they are all accessable to eachother as GreatMarko mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samxiao Posted November 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2013 I think we should at least implement with an IP range. I can't expect hardcoding all static IPs. By the way, I use `tcpdump` to sniff it and found that the default port is 44444, which my "btsync mac" version is probably not listening to that. Can we make this better in the next release?:-) To make this a whole lot easier just use this:http://www.ipaddresslocation.org/ip-address-ranges.php I tested it out with a IP block I own and it seemed to work fine. Just put 192.168.1.1/24 (for instance) and it will spit out a list of all the IPs. Copy that and either use a script that will add the ports to the end or enter them by hand and then just paste that list to all your VMs. I'm in a similar boat to you (as far as your goal to have a custom tracker/relay), but at the moment this seems like the best way to go about it. For the time being it might actually be more secure this way because all the nodes will only be able to connect to the specified IPs (of course that is if they are all accessable to eachother as GreatMarko mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nils Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I think we should at least implement with an IP range. I can't expect hardcoding all static IPs. Can we make this better in the next release?Add this request to the long wish list thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.