I think it's just that the software is not yet mature and production-ready, and perhaps I was throwing too much data at it at once. Seeing the project progress, I'm confident that when it becomes more stable it will be a very nice piece of software, but it's not there yet.
[1] Okay, this is true for BitTorrent Sync versions < 1.4 -- more recent versions have been less reliable, particularly with regards to cross-platform syncing.
We haven't experienced any bugs so long as we both keep our versions in sync. Once one has a later version than the other, all bets are off. That's a problem that's tricky to solve correctly though.
Aside from that, we were disappointed by the constant needs to restart SyncThing when saving configuration changes, some lack of UX features (e.g. being able to move where your sync share is stored -- I made an issue on Github and was told to edit the config file manually and restart SyncThing -- I asked if a pull request would be accepted if I added the feature myself, and got a vague response.)
Overall though, SyncThing has worked excellently for us.
I was trying to sync seven machines in three different physical locations, some with slow internet connectivity; only one machine in each location had its syncthing ports open to the internet through NAT. I'm not sure it's a supported use case: syncing in the same LAN generally worked fine, but changes often didn't propagate correctly to other locations; for instance a folder name change sometimes was not propagated to the remote locations, and after some time the machine in which the rename had happened detected that the rest of the machines in the syncthing group had a folder which didn't exist locally (the folder with the old name), and downloaded it from its peers. The result was that the folder was duplicated everywhere, with both the old and the new name.
The same happened sometimes with deletions: sometimes they didn't propagate over LAN boundaries, and this resulted in the deleted files reappearing after some time.
A machine staying "syncing..." forever also happened sometimes, requiring a manual restart of the service. I couldn't reliably reproduce it though.
I like the project and I'm sure if I reported the issues in github they'd have given support. I wish I had the time for properly reporting and investigating, but I really needed a syncing solution I could trust for a small business and I needed it ASAP, so I settled for owncloud (which for the moment has not given me any surprises). I will try to find some time to reproduce the bugs in my personal machines and report them, but I really didn't have the time when I found them.
maybe the active spideroak project with nimbus is something for you
https://github.com/SpiderOak https://github.com/SpiderOak/nimbus.io
There were a few posts on the Syncthing forums requesting it as a feature but they didn't really get anywhere:
https://forum.syncthing.net/t/possibility-to-sync-local-fold...
In the mean time, I'm using GoodSync for sync'ing locally:
http://www.goodsync.com/download
It works quite well for that purpose, but since it's proprietary I'm not comfortable with blindly trusting it to sync my important files over the internet.
Still waiting for that perfect open-source p2p sync app that can also do local sync'ing.
I personally use duplicity to make versioned backups of my homedir (on OSX, debian and Arch machines) and keep versioned dropbox-like backups via owncloud. My homedir backups are GPG encrypted automatically.
1: https://git-annex.branchable.com/
"It will continue to be maintained and supported for the foreseeable future, and we occasionally release new versions with bug fixes, improvements (sometimes large ones), and contributed patches."
Seriously ? How about Rsync?
> When a file has been modified on two devices
> simultaneously, one of the files will be renamed to
> <filename>.sync- conflict-<date>-<time>.<ext>.Conveniently, it has a built-in backup system you can enable that keeps the last 'n' copies of files. I've got mine set to 5 so even if something goes horribly wrong, I can fetch from the backup.
Stand up a dedicated server running syncthing and poof!, you have a centralized syncthing.
Here's the bug report that was closed without any fix:
https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/468
And user reports of this show up pretty often:
https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/1841
https://forum.syncthing.net/t/arm-linux-cpu-usage-99-for-man...
https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/1841
A sync tool that uses on the order 2MB of RAM per GB of files or 4kB per file isn't really usable. A cheap NAS these days can easily have 6TB of RAID6 storage but it won't have 12GB of RAM. Clearly something in syncthing is keeping way too much stuff pinned in memory and the developers so far haven't focused on that. There's no apparent need for this memory usage either as there's already an on-disk database with the state of the sync folder.
I've never noticed performance issues with syncthing, excepting my old original Nexus 7 tablet which does seem to suffer a bit due to its poor hardware. I keep my photos volume (~250GB) synchronized between three desktop systems and it's never presented a problem with those.
Given that the grandparent mentions issues with larger volumes, there may be some sort of "tipping point" beyond which performance degrades, and I just have not encountered it.
Regardless I'd encourage people to give Syncthing a try. The project is under very active development and the issue the grandparent mentions may be resovled by now, and of course that issue might be environment specific and not generally applicable.
Actually it doesn't. There are some add-ons to do it but the base tool does periodic full scans.
> I've never noticed performance issues with syncthing, excepting my old original Nexus 7 tablet which does seem to suffer a bit due to its poor hardware. I keep my photos volume (~250GB) synchronized between three desktop systems and it's never presented a problem with those.
250GB between desktops with multiple GB of RAM probably works. It will soak up plenty of resources though.
>Regardless I'd encourage people to give Syncthing a try. The project is under very active development and the issue the grandparent mentions may be resovled by now, and of course that issue might be environment specific and not generally applicable.
The issue is pervasive and apparently quite deeply rooted in the way syncthing is built as it's indeed under very active development but this hasn't improved.