syncspirit v.0.3.0 release! (github.com)

submitted 5 months ago by basiliscos2@lemmy.ml to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I’m glad to announce v0.3.0 release!

The major feature of the new release is the implementation of complete file synchronization, i.e., the ability to send and receive files. To identify local changes, a periodical folder full scan is performed.

You can download ready-to-use binaries for Linux and Windows as well as the source code.

Syncspirit is a syncthing-compatible synchronization program that implements BEP-protocol. Syncspirit is a syncthing-compatible is written from the scratch software, which had different technical decisions on its foundation to overcome syncthing limitations. Syncspirit is available for Windows and Linux. Currently, Syncspirit is targeted at power users and early adopters who feel comfortable with command lines.

Any feedback is welcome!

WBR, basiliscos.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] kudos@lemmy.ml 19 points 5 months ago

What are some of the limitations in Syncthing that this overcomes?

[-] christophski@feddit.uk 4 points 5 months ago

Is this going to deviate from the syncthing implementation at some point or will it always be compatible?

[-] basiliscos2@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

I think it will always stay compatible on protocol level.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

which had different technical decisions on its foundation to overcome syncthing limitations

Besides the fact that Syncthing is an API and requires another thing to act as a front-end, what other limitations are there?

[-] basiliscos2@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

I think because of that they do not implement "selective sync" feature, i.e. when you need to sync only a slice of remote directory.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

But… isn’t that more like a frontend decision than anything else? Syncthing already has ignore rules that can be used to ignore a few subfolders and keep the rest, that can be used to emulate a selective sync no?

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

Even that doesn't emulate selective sync... Well, I'd say it's a form of selective sync, just different than what I think OP is talking about.

In Resilio, I can ad-hoc select files/folders to sync now.

For example, if I setup a Resilio sync of my 2TB media folder, my phone will get an index of that share/sync job. I can then browse through the indexed folders, select files to sync, click OK and it will sync just those files right now.

Syncthing doesn't work this way.

I don't really use Resilio much, it's too ram heavy on my phone, so I only launch it for such selective sync tasks. Otherwise I let Syncthing handle my day-to-day data sync - it's much more battery and memory friendly for me. Just wish it had this kind of ad-hoc sync.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In Resilio, I can ad-hoc select files/folders to sync now. (...) Syncthing doesn’t work this way.

Yes, and what makes it impossible to create a GUI for Syncthing that does the same thing? It just had to list the folders and allow you to pick what you want instead a text box to enter ignore rules.

Oh, I just found a tool that does exactly what I was typing: https://github.com/galilley/syncthing-pyselective

Third-party app to realize selective sync in Syncthing. It gives minimalist GUI to select which folders, subfolders and files you want to sync with a local machine and which one you would like to add for syncing. It reads the global and local folder trees and fill tree view with checkboxes. Your choice is transformed to new list of ignores and submitted into Syncthing. Please be careful especially with the firsts versions as it could damage your predefined .stignore.

I never got the fuzz around Syncthing not having selective sync and the alleged complexity of making it. That tools does what I always think was possible to do, or am I missing something?

@basiliscos@lemmy.ml ?

[-] basiliscos2@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

That tools does what I always think was possible to do, or am I missing something?

I think the problem is that they do not share the whole communication protocol/model with GUI/client and it has only feature to block something aposteriory masks, while the whole folder with all files is already shared with client's device. The original syncthing database scheme also seems does not supporting this.

Technically, from a protocol view level, there is no problem just to ask a single file to download and share only it.