Local Sync Is Not Priority?

[BlackHorse]

I have 3 point of sync - notebook + srv1 + srv2.

I put files in notebook. I use LAN with srv1 and use WAN with srv2.

I think that synchronization with srv1 shall take place quicker.

However it not so. Synchronization goes quicker with srv2.

What do I do not so?

[Varnagas]

Depends. Local server load is the same as remote one's? Bandwidth to WAN is as fast as local?

 

I do have similar situation as well. However in my case it is WAN connections. Peers reside as follows:

• my workstation and colleague in same LAN, quite limited WAN speed
• one peer in the same city, fiber speed connection
• few peers in neighbour country, faster connection than us
• few other peers in farther country, faster connection as well 

Issue here is with peer in same city. I added it as a cache to boosts distribution among all peers. Sadly, amazing speeds are not working for us. Neither it gets files from abroad first nor from us. It connects directly to all. Newest client versions, keeping updated, same with all.

 

I suppose in my case it might be some inter-ISP issue. But it is hardly possible. When syncing only to that "local" peer we can get all speed this limited connection offers. So who knows...

 

BT Sync might consider implementing optimising/boosting scripts to route transfers and connection to achieve best share-wide distribution possible based on connected peers. One can hope

[GreatMarko]

Local Sync Is Not Priority?

 

Sync's aim is to try and transfer files as quickly as possible, therefore "priority" is essentially based on how quickly each peer can deliver data, regardless of whether it's on a Wired/Wireless LAN or WAN.

 

Now generally speaking wired connections are faster than wireless connections, and LANs are faster than WANs. However, if in your case your LAN transfers are slower than your WANs, there are a couple of settings within Sync that you could try and change to see if this improves your LAN transfer speed:

 

The advanced settings to try changing are:

"lan_encrypt_data" - set this to "false"

"lan_use_tcp" - set this to "true"

 

...and also untick the "Search LAN" option (this is a per-folder setting), as enabled this can dump a lot of multicast traffic on your LAN, which could reduce overall speeds.

[lolcat]

The interessting difference between BTSync and a normal torrent is that it has to encrypt the file (or parts of it) before seeding, I assume this can create some odd behavior. For a normal torrent you can access all the files you want to seed at random, but BTSync can't do that, because the files it is seeding doesn't exist on the drive. The way it gets around this is by caching pieces of the files in a database, and then I assume (and hope) it prioritizes seeding those pieces before it encrypts another file and seeds that.

[BlackHorse]

Thanks for the help!

LAN connection (wi-fi) much quicker than WAN (vdsl 2MB) is natural.

But this situation now isn't reproduced.

Probably the problem was in option "use hosts" use in properties of the folder with specifying of the server available through WAN.

Naturally encoding slows down transmission to 10-25%, but it not essentially as speed all the same starts being measured in the Mb, instead of in KB.

Connection on tcp too makes % influence.

In this connection there was an idea:

It would be good to have opportunity to specify the priority server for unloading to help BitSync.