I’m a user of BTSync, freshly moving to Syncthing because it’s open source, my current setup is still a mix of both. I use Syncthing when I can but sometimes still must stick to BTSync.
Most of the data are photos and documents about 280GB/30k Files (11 folders/7 nodes). I use it for backup and exchange at the same time.
Meet the family:
1 off-site server with 100Mbps Internet connection connected to every single share.
- All shares are in Syncthing some are also in BTSync (ignore .sync, .st*)
3 workstation (windows) all running BtSync
- Need to take care of them
2 mobile devices using both BtSync and Syncthing
- Syncthing: for folders that must be periodically fully sync (On wifi & plugged) Like photo’s backup- BtSync: for folders that need only files / sub-folders to be synced, or to be sync in real-time.
1 workstation running Syncthing
- Syncthing: working through proxy, so currently it require my phone connected to the same wifi but with LTE Internet, to act as bridge.
1 (very) small server running Syncthing (Cubiboard (Linux arm7) )
- Hot CPU one
What could be better for my use cases:
Sync only files/sub-folders (stignore is not simple enough) . This
migh be addressed by having a file .synconly (exemple) which if it
exist will only sync the files listed inside. That together with a contextual
action to add/remove lines from it could do it.
Have support for sock/http proxies. I’m wondering Syncthing use TLS
so maybe just making it listen on 443 would work without much
changes ?
Inotify support which trigger only re-scan of the modified files
instead of fully rescanning every folders periodically. I’m often
coding on one machine and compiling on an other, instant transfer of
the updated files would be great. Same for the limited resources on
a phone.
Support for untrusted/backup folders (store an encrypted copy of the
folder for hosts that can bring bandwidth but should not access the data)
Conclusion
I am full of hopes for Syncthing, I’m sure some of the point above are already under consideration or even development. And anyway this software is already doing a very good job at syncing file on a server/desktop.
To be honest I’m not such a big fan of the mobile version, I still use it for backup of photos (that works ok) but I cannot for syncing ID, reservations and so on when I travel because those are sub-folders of my Documents folder and I’m too lazy to put all my folders in .stignore (Cf. point 1).
Also I currently use it only on charging/wifi because it consume too much resources (data and cpu).
And lastly I think some inspiration form the btsync UI would be welcome.
The problem with .stignore is that you will need to add all new files at the root or in folders not ignored.
My idea was to have a file .stdownload (or another name) which would do the exact opposite : if it exist in a folder Synthing would only download the files listed in it. That seemed more elegant, but as long as there is an easy way to achieve it, i’ll be happy. By easy way I mean an option to check “Don’t download folder automatically when adding it” and a long press on a sub-folder or file to add it to the sync.
I think they are already working on differential transfer of the index files which would be a good start for bandwidth.
Not really other than that feature-wise it’s ok, maybe the “Waiting for API” message at each start is annoying as well as the slow startup. Would it be a way to not stop syncthing when options “Only use on Wifi” or have an option to only stop data use? So we can open the app to have an idea of how many files to sync?
