Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

According to the wikipedia page, Microsoft Live Sync will shortly stop offering the PC-to-PC sync service. There are lots of apps to sync two PCs on the same LAN, but I want to sync two PCs that are in different cities, across the internet, traversing two different NATs, and that requires some kind of service running in the internet that both connect into.

There is already a few questions about syncing folders and files, but this is not a duplicate because none of them answer this basic question:

Microsoft Live Sync works better than RSYNC, or any of the linked SYNC solutions in any of the "not really duplicates" because it works even when the two PCs have NAT and firewalls between them that forbid direct connectivity, because Windows Live Sync has a free always-on internet server that all the client PCs connect into.

I'm looking for a FREE (no-fees) Microsoft Live Sync work-alike PC-to-PC sync solution that works between PCs and Macs, at least, as well as between PCs, and works behind NAT and firewalls at least as well as Microsoft's solution. (Note that Microsoft's solution makes only outbound socket calls to a microsoft server, so this solution must necessarily include a server-hub component that is hosted publically on a free site and which does not require that I set up and manage and pay for my own public internet hosting site)

Hint: None of the answers in the linked duplicate are equivalent (PureSync,FreeFileSync,BestSync 2010,SyncButler,Comodo BackUp,QuickShadow,Gbridge) in that none of them work for the PC to Mac situation, where firewalls and nats prevent direct connection, or else they require money to be paid.

When Microsoft Live Sync / Live Mesh finally kills direct PC-to-PC mode, the limitation will be that you will have to pay for more than 25 GB of cloud service, and you can then only sync PC #1 to PC #2 if you first sync to the cloud, then down to other clients. I can currently sync 100 gb of data from one computer to another, only temporarily "moving the data" through Microsoft's data servers without using up my Skydrive storage quota.

share|improve this question
    
possible duplicate of Keeping folders synced between several machines –  Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 Mar 29 '12 at 15:50
    
Exactly NOT a duplicate of the suggested one because he doesn't want internet-traffic, whereas I want to sync over the internet peer to peer, not over a LAN. –  Warren P Apr 9 '12 at 3:06
    
Dropbox LAN sync does not work? –  crea7or Apr 9 '12 at 3:09
1  
The two computers are NOT on a common local area network. They are both on different networks, in different cities, but I don't want to store 50 gigs on the cloud and then download it. I want to directly sync, using only a cloud-based or internet-hosted service. –  Warren P Apr 9 '12 at 3:22
    
You want it free. Reliable NAT traversal requires someone to host servers, which costs money. This is therefore an impossibility. What you could get, however, is a product with a low fee that gives you optional paid storage, used as a buffer while a PC is offline. I'd personally pay for that. –  romkyns Apr 24 '12 at 14:02

2 Answers 2

I guess that there is no such software like this. Have you tried Sugar Sync or Box.net? Both them are among the best sync software in the industry. I believe some cloud computing services may help you in this case.Although, Windows Live sync is also on cloud.

share|improve this answer

How about upgrading to Windows Live Mesh? More here

share|improve this answer
1  
Sorry windows Live mesh IS what I'm using, but they're calling it Windows Live Sync now. Name changed. And they're stopping the peer to peer part of it. If you buy their commercial cloud account for say 200 gb you could sync 200 gb from a Pc to another Pc but I want to avoid the cloud storage, and simply use the cloud as a proxy to defeat the NAT and firewalls when computers are not on same network, not directly routable thanks to NAT, but can both see the internet. –  Warren P Apr 9 '12 at 3:08

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.