A proposal for a receive-only folder type

Yeah. I might though, but step one was to specify it a bit. That feels fairly successful.


@calmh This sounds like a really useful feature the lack of which would stop many people switching from Resilio Sync. Many of us would really appreciate if this was implemented and allow us to use SyncThing! :slight_smile:

1 Like


My first post here - Syncthing is great for what I’ve seen so far!

On-topic - Would you reckon in scope if after mutual consent (could be receive-only + main host, or it could be rcv-only + all cluster participants) the changes on the receive-only folder are propagated within the cluster?

I already have a use case for such an option. And it could be further expanded furthe with granular file control.

Off-topic and introduction /feel free to disregard/ -

I am currently designing a test implementation for “real-time” sync of a ~1.2TiB iwatched folder across WAN (over dedicated 100MBit line at a 2ms distance) containing over 3.2M directories and 2M files. The test environment is virtualised and I am studying the requirements.

These directories will have Samba running on top. All Samba shares will be accessed by ~30 hosts total. Despite that, collisions will happen very seldom. Writes per day would come at a steady pace, totalling about 3-7GiB/day. Reads range between 10-40GiB/day with possible spikes (irrelevant to the sync). Maximum time tolerance before is approximately one minute.

We will see how it goes. I am optimistic. :slight_smile:

No, this probably requires better structuring on your side splitting read only and read write parts into separate folders. People already can’t use ignores, adding yet another cryptic text box with magical petroglyphs for some magic hybrid folders that can write to some paths but not others is out of the question.


Understandable, that makes sense in a user’s point of view and verges on the side of overcomplicating things.

Regardless, as long as I can provide the necessary infrastructure to fully enable the software and get sane performance, I can start working around it.

Unfortunately I’ve explored various options about restructuring the data as well as other solutions (hello DRBD), but I am limited in my options. Furthermore, the projects are very dynamic and there is always a statistically signifant amount of exceptions to work around case by case. My only option is creating tools, but that requires a lot of project-specific adjustments. But I digress again…

Thanks for the prompt reply!


Thanks. Fantastic feature! But… there one flaw - I have a big database of pictures and manuals I would like to share with my colleague, but I don’t trust him enough not to mess my folders. He isn’t a tech geek, I can set up a Syncthing instance for him but I’m certain, he will get interested into the settings, so he can change Receive Only status to something else. Is there a way to prevent that? Cheers.

No, it’s against the design of a distributed system with no authority.

Set your own folder as Sendonly. That way he cannot screw with your data.

I need to have this folder send/receive with other machines and as far as I know, you cannot set the same folder twice. @AudriusButkevicius, I understand your concerns, just I thought about scenario when you would like to share your family pics with your parents but you don’t want them to be able to remove or rearrange your albums :wink:

If your family is able to delete pictures without understanding what they are doing, then I doubt they will be able to find a way to access the GUI, and then be able to go into settings and change the folder type from receive only to something else.

You can make it as artificially complicated as you want to access the GUI, by setting it to a different address and port. That way even a quick google search will not help him to access the GUI.

@AudriusButkevicius I think the feature request that is hiding in there is just to have the option to lock the GUI or just the settings by a password which I think is not unreasonable. It is especially useful for users who use syncthing to distribute data.

You’re both right, I’m using SyncTrayzor for GUI and forgot that the Syncthing can run ‘headless’.

You can already setup a username and a password for the UI.


Sorry, I have not seen that yet.

@adi-dev That should be a easy solution for you.

Note that the SyncTrayzor UI will bypass any username or password set in the GUI, when viewed using SyncTrayzor.

Reminds me of a previous idea to implement read-only-like behavior: New Folder type: Receive Only

@scienmind I would be fine with that being an “Advanced” setting.

I have a receive-only folder on my Android phone that shall be overwritten by other changes (on my Windows computer) automatically. I don’t want to confirm that. So I would be grateful for that option.

You mean you want it to automatically and always write over the Android data? I think if data changes independently on the Android, you’ll always be prompted by the nature of what “sync” means.

What if the file added to the Android is something you want? You really want Syncthing to delete it with no confirmation?