Local sync #101
-
|
Hi, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 3 comments
-
|
Hi @leadefao, Thank you for your question. Currently, ByteSync doesn't support direct local synchronization out-of-the-box. It is still possible to achieve local synchronization, but it requires running two instances of ByteSync—even if both instances are on the same machine. I'm actively working on adding direct local synchronization support using a single instance. This upcoming feature will enable managing multiple Data Nodes, each containing one or more Data Sources. Additionally, it will remain possible to synchronize these nodes with remote instances, which themselves can also manage multiple Data Nodes. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @leadefao Good news! ByteSync now supports local synchronization using a single instance. You no longer need to run two separate instances to achieve local sync. How it worksWhen you create a synchronization session, ByteSync can now:
Current LimitationWhile the data transfer itself happens locally, the orchestration and control flow still communicate with the cloud server. This means:
This hybrid approach ensures reliable synchronization while keeping your data local. However, I'm planning to add a fully offline mode where even the control flow would be local when there's only one member in the session. Feel free to try it out and let me know if you have any questions! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Hi @leadefao
Good news! ByteSync now supports local synchronization using a single instance. You no longer need to run two separate instances to achieve local sync.
How it works
When you create a synchronization session, ByteSync can now:
Current Limitation
While the data transfer itself happens locally, the orchestration and control flow still communicate with the cloud server. This means: