Freekers Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 I'm running BTSync 1.4.111 on my Synology RS814 in combination with BTSync Client 2.0.105 on my Windows 7 (32-bit) machine. BTSync says that one folder is Out of Sync. However, it is connected to 1 of 1 peers and 4.43GB is pending to be uploaded. So my question is; Why isn't it syncing? How can I troubleshoot this? I can't upgrade to BTSync 2.0 on my NAS as I have more than 10 folders that are synced with my NAS; My friends also sync to my NAS; Indivudually we do not exceed 10 folders per person, but combined together, we have more than 10 folders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iswrong Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 I can't upgrade to BTSync 2.0 on my NAS as I have more than 10 folders that are synced with my NAS; My friends also sync to my NAS; Indivudually we do not exceed 10 folders per person, but combined together, we have more than 10 folders. I guess this depends on your NAS, but on our Pi we run a couple of BTSync instances with different identities (of different persons). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freekers Posted May 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 As BTSync is a memory hog, I don't see that working on a NAS with limited memory to be honest (neither on a Pi). But thanks for thinking along Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iswrong Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 As BTSync is a memory hog, I don't see that working on a NAS with limited memory to be honest (neither on a Pi). But thanks for thinking along Memory hog? Each instance on my Pi generally takes ~40-60MB memory (tens of gigabytes in shares). My Pi has 1GB memory*.$ free -m total used free shared buffers cachedMem: 927 909 18 46 149 622-/+ buffers/cache: 137 789Swap: 99 0 99In other words, there is ~789MB free memory (after subtracting OS buffers/caches). * I assume that the amount of memory being used is correlated to the number of files, so there may be more degenerate cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freekers Posted May 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 As you can see in the picture below, BTSync is the biggest memory hog on my entire NAS:Currently, 14 folders are being synced with my NAS. Yes, you are correct: The amount of memory being used is correlated to the number of files Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iswrong Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 As you can see in the picture below, BTSync is the biggest memory hog on my entire NAS: Currently, 14 folders are being synced with my NAS. Yes, you are correct: The amount of memory being used is correlated to the number of files I don't want to distract from your original question, since I cannot help with your original question, but unfortunately that does not say (too) much, it's only an upper bound. For example, memory mapped files are counted towards resident memory, although they don't actually use that memory (the operating system loads pages into memory as needed). So to conclude whether btsync is actually a memory hog, you have to look at the resident set and subtract memory used by shared libraries and any mmapped files (see the pmap command on Linux). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daevski Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 For the record, I've been in this state many times with a read only key, and here is the scenario and how I've fixed it. Scenario:I copy a read only a key from master machine, and setup on slave machine. I say master and slave only because it's read only. If there are changes on the slave machine (for example you renamed, or deleted something) then the folders will be "out of sync" and because it's read only the slave can't properly correct the mistake... Or at least this is what I presume happens. SOLUTION:In my case, I deleted all the slaves files and "disconnect" the folder on the slave, and then setup the folder on the slave again. Then it will sync correctly. A pain in the butt? Yes, but this was a beta version... and the software (while easy to use) is kind of flaky... and closed source. I'm waiting for a polished alternative. SyncThing is a good alternative, but still in dev, and definately not polished yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Daevski, That's right - if the files are changed on RO peer, they are later skipped by Sync and syncing of them will stop. RW peer will show these file as yet to be uploaded, while RO will say it's synced. This is by design. To avoid it just enable "Overwrite any changed files' option in Sync on RO side. And if a file there gets changed, it will be immediately re-synced from RW to match it. This is way easier than disconnecting the folder each time. 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.