4 ms·

I installed and played with BTSync yesterday. It was really easy to get it all up and running syncing between two local machines and a remote server. The config

by aidos 13y ago

I installed and played with BTSync yesterday. It was really easy to get it all up and running syncing between two local machines and a remote server. The config was really simple compared to other stuff I've used. Sometimes it could take a while before the syncing would start which is a bit of a pain. We run a system where we have a lot of data on a server that we want to see locally. Edits are made both locally and on the server. At the moment we're using Aerofs to handle the syncing. As a general rule it works really well. The issue we've run into is with pre-seeding new machines (ie, when our spot instance based server get killed). I need to play around a bit more but it's time consuming to get a machine back online and totally synced (there may be a solution to this). Mostly it's a pain being at the mercy of someone else's magic. Aero is great, except when it isn't - and we don't know the rules. That's a real pain if it's business critical. BTSync looked great - until I realised that it's not opensource either. There are a few syncing options on there but they don't all tick all the boxes. Unison doesn't trigger on fs events so you have to run it manually. BTSync isn't opensource. Dropbox syncs to their servers and back. With AeroFS you don't always know how it's doing what it's doing. So far AeroFS has been the winner for us. BTSync definitely looks like it fills the same space though.

CrankyPants 13y ago
We tested AeroFS and BTSync on a variety of data in shared folders, and consistently found sync issues with BTSync. We eventually abandoned BTSync for AeroFS, and while it hasn't been perfect, it's been considerably better at handling syncing issues. Anecdotal, and just one case, but hope someone finds it helpful.
- aidos 13y ago
  Useful to know. I only tested btsync briefly yesterday and it wasn't picking up changes as quick as Aero. Again, single data point but I'd recommend Aero from what I've seen (and we use it all day every day).
- neumann 13y ago
  We have had the same experience. I loved the idea of BTsync, but we encountered too many issues. We tested sparkleshare and lipsync too. Unfortunately, none of them dealt with conflicts and merges as they were meant to. BTsync would often not pick up changes (using osx and linux clients), and/or overwrite new files with an older version. It also had a slow latency when a file did change. As to the open source nature of it, you can supposedly limit its access to the shared servers through configuration, but this caused more sync problems. These tests made us appreciate the Dropbox implementation even more. Unfortunately, we need non-cloud syncing for our data, so I wrote a complex cron/rsync/inotify hack with its own issues - but at least we know the limitations and have custom workarounds. Personally, I hope BTsync will mature and be a feasible alternative.
  - aidos 13y ago
    That's starting to sound like a pattern on BTSync now. What do you mean by non-cloud syncing? Have you tried Aero? I thought about doing a inotify/unison solution - apparently unison is good at dealing with conflicts and the like. With all these syncing tools it's the uncertainty that causes issues. You're always worried about what data is going to end up where in the edge cases. As you say - at least with a few scripts glued together you know what's happening (and how to fix it if required).
    - neumann 13y ago
      Non-cloud = my clumsy way of saying operating on private servers with no 3rd party storage (and ideally no connection) necessary. Looked into Aero, but I am pushing towards an open source alternative to be used, or at least where the implementation is fully controlled/configured by us. I agree, unison is great and I think is the way forward towards a private dropbox solution.
bigiain 13y ago
Does AeroFS support 32bit OSen yet? That was a showstopper for me back when it first became available - it _required_ 64 bit Java…

by aidos 13y ago

CrankyPants 13y ago

We tested AeroFS and BTSync on a variety of data in shared folders, and consistently found sync issues with BTSync. We eventually abandoned BTSync for AeroFS, and while it hasn't been perfect, it's been considerably better at handling syncing issues. Anecdotal, and just one case, but hope someone finds it helpful.

aidos 13y ago
Useful to know. I only tested btsync briefly yesterday and it wasn't picking up changes as quick as Aero. Again, single data point but I'd recommend Aero from what I've seen (and we use it all day every day).
neumann 13y ago
We have had the same experience. I loved the idea of BTsync, but we encountered too many issues. We tested sparkleshare and lipsync too. Unfortunately, none of them dealt with conflicts and merges as they were meant to. BTsync would often not pick up changes (using osx and linux clients), and/or overwrite new files with an older version. It also had a slow latency when a file did change. As to the open source nature of it, you can supposedly limit its access to the shared servers through configuration, but this caused more sync problems. These tests made us appreciate the Dropbox implementation even more. Unfortunately, we need non-cloud syncing for our data, so I wrote a complex cron/rsync/inotify hack with its own issues - but at least we know the limitations and have custom workarounds. Personally, I hope BTsync will mature and be a feasible alternative.
- aidos 13y ago
  That's starting to sound like a pattern on BTSync now. What do you mean by non-cloud syncing? Have you tried Aero? I thought about doing a inotify/unison solution - apparently unison is good at dealing with conflicts and the like. With all these syncing tools it's the uncertainty that causes issues. You're always worried about what data is going to end up where in the edge cases. As you say - at least with a few scripts glued together you know what's happening (and how to fix it if required).
  - neumann 13y ago
    Non-cloud = my clumsy way of saying operating on private servers with no 3rd party storage (and ideally no connection) necessary. Looked into Aero, but I am pushing towards an open source alternative to be used, or at least where the implementation is fully controlled/configured by us. I agree, unison is great and I think is the way forward towards a private dropbox solution.

bigiain 13y ago

Does AeroFS support 32bit OSen yet? That was a showstopper for me back when it first became available - it _required_ 64 bit Java…