The Current is part of a VM, NextCloud would be a VM - Why could you not mount both?
How woudl that work? What would NextCloud do with a bunch of random files that have no metadata? They don't exist in the database, what would happen to them?
There's a command you can run that will take a list of files and make them available to a user, I think.
So one user would just get "everything." Or else it's a huge manual process.
Not exactly. Have you ever looked at the file structure of ownCloud/Nextcloud?
Basically in the /data folder there are subfolders per user. You would populate those with the files from the old file server. Then you pop into the CLI and issue this command to rescan the folders and put the stuff in the database.
sudo -u apache php occ files:scan --all -v
You can also do it per user.
I would not recommend ever doing this on an existing system that was not already hosed for some other reason.
Ah, I didn't think of the barrier restricting me to 2012 R2.
Yeah, the misinstallation is anything but trivial. It sounds trivial, and in some ways it is for the first two years, but it gets worse and worse as time goes on. If it was only the bloat, then whatever, not great but you wouldn't be anxious to work around it. But it is licensing and risk.
Now that said, any effort that you can use to move to 2016 today, you can still do tomorrow. So you just need to think about the right time to make the change.
Well http://daerma.com is working perfectly, but http://JaredBusch.com is not updating the permalinks correctly. I will just nuke that one and redo it later and see if the problem goes away. I only have 3 posts on it.
@Dashrender While true, it's both a funding problem and a hardware limitation on what I have to work with. With that said however, I have disproven the fact that it is a dynamic memory problem as the data translation uses all 16GB of RAM while running the job but as soon as it's done, allocation drops substantially without the OS even knowing the difference. Also, running a second translation job this time using an iSCSI LUN that I setup on my new Synology NAS (just a small 10GB LUN to store and write data to as part of this test) is running much faster than with the local storage, but I'm using consumer level drives in the host machine as opposed to WD Reds in the Synology NAS. It's a very noticeable difference.