hpbaxter Posted January 14, 2014 Report Posted January 14, 2014 personal Sync-server (on local -LAN-WAN) without internet.
smeerbartje Posted January 14, 2014 Report Posted January 14, 2014 personal Sync-server (on local -LAN-WAN) without internet. What exactly do you wish for? I think it's already in place now. If you set up a btsync instance on server 1, which does not relay, etc. and you set up server 2 which syncs only to a specific host (server 1), that's exactly what you mean, right?
smeerbartje Posted January 19, 2014 Report Posted January 19, 2014 I think that's to difficult for simple users.
rguttkuhn Posted January 19, 2014 Report Posted January 19, 2014 I am having trouble creating a valid config file for btsync on BSD. As soon as I try to specify shared folders I get error messages. It would be nice to have a way to save the current config or display it on the screen so I can save it to a working config file.Also, a proper way to shut down the service from the web GUI would be nice - Linux and BSD. Kiling the service seems crude and risky in case I kill it while a file is being written.
BT_Sync_User Posted January 19, 2014 Report Posted January 19, 2014 I Wish to install BitTorrent Sync on my Fritzbox.(BitTorrent already does it.)
dmarney Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 Versioning Another vote for synchronizing the SyncArchive folder so that every peer has the same versions of the same files. As it stands now, new versions of files only appear in the archives of one's peers. And, since the files are independently named per peer, the only way to resolve a conflict would be to hunt down the copies on all the other devices, open them all up, visually inspect them, then pick the one for the final merge. Ouch! You could still use the sync event to trigger the versioning. Rather than relying on a sequence number, maybe just use a timestamp from a common clock and append it to the name. Every version with a unique name then just gets synchronized to all peers.
t_m Posted January 22, 2014 Report Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) HI, I am primarily using SyncApp between my laptop and my phone as an experiment.at present. Its nice, but is a work in progress. Couple of requests - 1. VERY IMPORTANT - In light of the problems when ALL files do not get synced (which I also have) - a method of indicating which files are NOT synced is critically needed. This is urgent else the application cannot be trusted and that is a disaster for all. 2. I ditto on the need to use VSS on Windows. 3. Also ditto only syncing those blocks that have changed - may not be possible in a light weight client but then the next point becomes very important. 4. IMPORTANT - Prioritisation of files or directories being selected for synced - a simple high, medium or low flag would be very useful. This could be done as bandwidth priority and/or a sequence priority for chunks - H M H M H L for example and/ or a latency delay - H could be immediate, M every 10 min and L every 1 hour - I leave it up to you guys. 5. Conflict resolution UI in case of a file having been modified on both devices separately since last sync. 6. IMPORTANT - For the Android App - a) A help file for android app - what are send and backup tabs for? A method of highlighting activites taking place in the app as well as bandwidth utilisation (cumulative and instant)c) Prioritisation and conflict resolution as given above. Keep up the nice work, Guys! TIA Edited May 24, 2014 by GreatMarko Struck-through items are suggestions which now have their own dedicated threads in the Feature Requests forum. Greyed out items have since been implemented
Boatguy Posted January 26, 2014 Report Posted January 26, 2014 With 46 pages I can't tell what has been suggested, but I'd like to see improved photo viewing of synced photos with the iOS app. I'd like to be able to view in landscape mode, zoom, and flip between files rather than view one at a time. Great app!
Tony Shark Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Sync over specific network interfaces Note: this is a re-post of an earlier thread. It was suggested by one of the admins that I add it to this thread. Some of the files I'm planning to sync from my MacBook Pro to my Windows Home Server are very large (virtual machines) and as such I'd like to enable syncing only when I've connected to my local network using Ethernet (rather than using the WiFi). This is because a sync over anything other than a local ethernet connection will take forever, massacre my WiFi and max out my broadband monthly data cap in no time. Request:For each sync folder, allow the user to specify which network interfaces may be used for syncing (default = All), so as I can de-select WiFi for these folders. On my mac, for example, I have the option of two thunderbolt ethernet interfaces, the WiFi and bluetooth. I'd like to enable the two ethernet interfaces for my VM sync folder and disable the others.For each sync folder, allow the user to specify if it should sync over LAN only (default = False) so as I can prevent these folders from syncing over the internet (when I'm in the office, for example, or maybe working on a mobile tether)Cheers, Pete
Rorg Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Hi guys, I would like to address some more access security. My "wish" would be that, despite the fact that the secret is hard to guess, you add some kind of password feature. Please let me explain why. The reason is pretty simple: Human nature. It is relatively easy to obtain a key when you have a quick access to a PC or human communication. Since the key is somehow visual, it would be good if you have got some non-visual item attached which is a password you keep in your memory and not written anywhere. This is the same like with credit card numbers when they introduced the 3-digit security code for online purchase. I would like to change your current secret concept to the following: 1. Master key = key + additional password2. Read only key = key + additional password3. Broadcast key = read only key as it is right now4. One time key = key as it is right now The password could simply be a kind of split secret so you cut some part of the secret and use it like the current secret and the rest as password: e.g.: 30 digit key = 20 digit secret + 10 digit password
sty Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 Currently, btsync only transfers two files at the same time from the same folder if the files are <12MB in size. Also, btsync seems to only transfer a single chunk at the time which feels like a very conservative setting. I'd like to propose that these were configurable, e.g. there would be a settings page where you can configure how many chunks can be on the fly at the same time and/or how many files/threads btsync can transfer/utilise at the same time. This would alleviate many low-transfer-speed problems with high-latency links because it partially sidesteps the transfer window size problem. Also some of the ISP throttling could be avoided this way.
Bohemia Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 Hello, The most obviously useful addition is to include a metric that shows what percentage is left on the transfer of a file. At the moment, recipients are sitting in the dark wondering how long a transfer is going to take. Thanks. Be Well,Timothy
syadnom Posted February 7, 2014 Report Posted February 7, 2014 capability to 'view' a folder or rather mount a 'view' to the swarm using the read-only key. Use case is specifically to distribute videos and images across various computers but be able to watch or view the files via streaming. Could use this with Plex and mount up a read-only btsync folder as a library and watch from the swarm Secondly, +++++++++10000000 for shadow copy sync on locked files. The method I would prefer is to shadow copy the locked file and sync, then when the lock is released switch back to direct sync of that file. I believe that you can pull the diff between the shadow copy and 'live' without having to hash the whole file through a .net library.
lonestar551 Posted February 12, 2014 Report Posted February 12, 2014 Once I've added a share folder on PC, I'd like to select which files I'd like to sync. I don't necessarily want to transfer the entire folder once it's shared.
kevinheslop Posted February 13, 2014 Report Posted February 13, 2014 My request is for more control over connected devices. Initially a list of previously connected devices to a given share to remain after disconnection. Currently the list will clear after a while.In addition to the list remaining, I would like a kill switch for the devices in the share list (e.g. a phone or laptop is lost or stolen, the links can be severed). This would appear to be a case for a master version of the program, or password locked tab to give administrative powers so that a compromised machine cannot be used to back feed the kill... This may also be possible if each share could have multiple ReadWrite and ReadOnly codes, individual code removals would kill the remote device. Of less importance, but in the same vein, information of the sync progress status on each device as well as the last connection would be useful - knowing when I turn off my office PC that my laptop at home has caught up would be nice! Thank you for all your efforts so far - its looking good.
eSietsema Posted February 17, 2014 Report Posted February 17, 2014 Add a feature that will delete all downloaded content from the phone only. This would be useful as phone storage is limited. Delete only the downloaded data on the phone, keeping the data in the other places and allowing the phone to download again if needed later.
sirio81 Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 +1 for btsync as Open Source project.
Shark88 Posted February 18, 2014 Report Posted February 18, 2014 I have a feature request for the Mac client. Since I am pausing BTSync often in the menu bar, it would be helpful if the menu bar icon could indicate that the service is currently paused. Thanks!
crest Posted February 19, 2014 Report Posted February 19, 2014 First of all thank you for this GREAT app!! I use BTSync mainly as a backup solution with Windows and Android clients which are backuped to my NAS (NAS4FREE) but also to sync folders between two NAS4FREE (FreeBSD based) servers. Since this is a wishlist I would really appreciate to see the following features implemented in BTS:https access for the builtin webserver!!! ++1advanced settings implemented in the webGUI (like in the windows client) because the use of a config file (can) interferes sometimes with the options which are configurable via the webGUI -> webGUI overrides the config-file settings ...hierarchical severity levels for the log file (like INFO, WARNING, ERROR, DEBUG, ...)consistent (=the same) information in logs for all kind of clients (Windows, FreeBSD, ...)if a sync folder will be removed from syncing at the client/webGUI the hidden files created by BTS should be removed as well by BTS Thanks in advance!
Guest proactiveservices Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 It'd be nice to have a bug and/or feature request database so that us users know our suggestions are not disappearing into the aether.
GreatMarko Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 It'd be nice to have a bug and/or feature request database so that us users know our suggestions are not disappearing into the aether. Don't worry, suggestions & feature requests made in this thread don't just disappear - they're not ignored! The developers are paying attention to what's posted in this thread, and are keeping track on how popular each suggestion made here is. In time there may well be a dedicated "Feature Requests" sub forum or similar, however, at present, do bear that Sync is still in "beta". During this development phase, the developers feel the best way to collect user suggestions and feature requests is via this thread. (There's also a separate mobile app Wishlist thread here, and an API Wishlist thread here)
Hoot215 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Posted February 22, 2014 Another +1 for it to be open-source.
Guest proactiveservices Posted February 24, 2014 Report Posted February 24, 2014 Don't worry, suggestions & feature requests made in this thread don't just disappear - they're not ignored! Thanks for the reply! Nice to know things aren't getting lost :-)
Recommended Posts