Storage question
-
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
I understand that running it locally has a speed advantage for internal users.
But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow side° -
@elegast said in Storage question:
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.
-
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.
in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.
in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?
Essentially yes. It's a self hosted version of those services. Business wise it can make sense if the user agreements for those services are not acceptable.
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow side°
But not nearly as slow as using a Windows file server over VPN for remote users. It works much better for that.
-
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.
in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?
Essentially yes. It's a self hosted version of those services. Business wise it can make sense if the user agreements for those services are not acceptable.
And it is free, and gets the speed of local bandwidth when working on the LAN.
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least
It's been a year since your last post.Thx!
yeah, i know; its been while
@DustinB3403 said in Storage question:
Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?
whats terrestrial based backup ?
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what has been proposed :
A windows AD server (only for authentication)
6TB usable storage
Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disksWhy Windows AD?
First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
Second... why Windows AD?AD was Demanded by the CTO...
Seems an odd person to be demanding infrastructure design. Why does the engineering department get any kind of say like that in IT?
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
i thought it was good to use the windows server as file server and back it up to the synology
It might be, but from the sound of it, probably not. Windows Fileservers certainly have a place, but you are coming from a situation where one doesn't exist and that would eliminate most deployments (same for AD, rolling out these kinds of services new in this day and age should be met with a critical eye - both have their place but in a small shop without that technical debt already in place, I'd be extremely cautious about making such a deep, long term commitment to that cost.)
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least
It's been a year since your last post.Thx!
yeah, i know; its been while@DustinB3403 said in Storage question:
Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?
whats terrestrial based backup ?
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what has been proposed :
A windows AD server (only for authentication)
6TB usable storage
Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disksWhy Windows AD?
First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
Second... why Windows AD?AD was Demanded by the CTO...
Seems an odd person to be demanding infrastructure design. Why does the engineering department get any kind of say like that in IT?
Not in a company that doesn't have a CIO. Not sure if that's the case here, but seems pretty likely.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow side°
Your remote workers will have this issues regardless of NextCloud, DropBox, or GoogleDrive. If their internet connection is slow, then their performance across all of these services will be slow.
-
Does NextCloud not have a sync client which sits on the client? @Dashrender
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Except this ignores the alternative access that NextCloud, Sharepoint, Alfresco, etc gives you that you don't have with Windows File Servers.
WebDAV is already setup by default in NextCloud, they have a client based sync client, you can set it up for versioning and version control so that things like ransomware is less of a threat.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
-
@coliver said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Except this ignores the alternative access that NextCloud, Sharepoint, Alfresco, etc gives you that you don't have with Windows File Servers.
WebDAV is already setup by default in NextCloud, they have a client based sync client, you can set it up for versioning and version control so that things like ransomware is less of a threat.
Sure NextCloud, Sharepoint, etc do offer both webdav and the sync clients as well as the web interface.
But the OP has already mentioned issues with OD and file sync, and all file sync solutions I've ever used have that same problem. JB's even posted about the occasional oC file sync issue - perhaps NC has fixed this, who knows?
But File sync does suffer the performance issues across the board based upon upload/download links.
And while if you enable it, versioning can save you from crypto malware problems, but rolling back massive changes requires a one at a time file rollback, the last time we talked about it (perhaps it can be scripted, but if so, then we have to make sure it's coded correctly to prevent end users from being able to delete/remove previous versions - just sayin').
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.
I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.
So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.
The sync client is no different than their competition, Dropbox, box, onedrive (before O365).
Every single service is designed around a sync client until very recently.NextCloud has WebDAV for the advanced and even online editing for the ones willing to go non MS.
That they do not make a plugin to suck your MS dick, does not make it a bad product.
Then you bring up versioning not being a crypto prevention/recovery when that was not part of the conversation.
What are you trying to push here?
-
Sharepoint has been integrated since at least Office 2013, if not Office 2010, so I don't consider that recent at all.
Sure all the other sync clients Box, DropBox, OD, ODfB (i.e. sharepoint), oC, NextCloud, etc are all similar sync clients, and they all suffer the same problems.
These solutions are not what Scott's talking about in this post
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
Now Scott mentions that introducing a Windows Fileserver will change the way people work - but no, not really. With the sync client those users work exactly the same as a Windows Fileserver - the files are considered local, or at least semi-local because the sync client syncs the files to a place on the system.
In fact introducing NextCloud WebDav or pure cloud would be the completely new introduction here. And if they use the sync client, there would be zero change from a user POV.
So assuming Scott is only talking about the new modern ways for filesharing, we have to limit ourselves to WebDav or browser interface.
JB - my comments were and continue to be about this, not about the sync client. That's definitely not modern and definitely has known issues.
