file sharing in the 21st century
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
It was confusing at first, but then I realized that NC is only aware of uploads, not someone opening a file, particularly with the sync client.
Remember that the file is local, it would be impossible for NC to override the local file system. Given that it is a sync, no sync system can really do this. If it did this, it would be unable to work offline which is really its purpose. Locking on remote file systems is a universal problem that cannot have a simple solution. All systems, including SMB shares, share this problem.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
- The conflict files take awhile to appear. I am worried that the user that created the conflict (by the nature of saving second) will have moved on and will be no longer looking in that directory and it will be very easy to miss that there is a conflict. I would prefer if conflicts were uploaded to the server or even synced to other clients to increase the chance of seeing it before it became a big problem.
Again, this is universal and not related to NC. Same would happen with offline SMB.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
- There doesn't appear to be any log that tracks all activities by all users. I seem to only be able to see activities that are related to the user in question in some way.
have you installed the "Activity" app? Or "Activities for shared file downloads?" Or "Audit / Logging"? We use all of those and have decent visibility.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
- We have two different versions of the windows sync client, 2.5.0 and 2.5.1, both say they are the most current and there are no updates. I have tried both on a second computer, and both versions will not show the sync icons, they just look like regular folders. The icons work fine on my end.
What mechanism are you using for installing them?
-
I am aware of that. It's online locking that I am after. Though, I will concede that any locking scheme has to plan for both online and offline. I like sync because of local performance and offline availability, but it really feels like it is best for non shared files. When you add multiple users into the mix, almost everything goes out the window, especially when and if they go offline.
-
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
- There doesn't appear to be any log that tracks all activities by all users. I seem to only be able to see activities that are related to the user in question in some way.
have you installed the "Activity" app? Or "Activities for shared file downloads?" Or "Audit / Logging"? We use all of those and have decent visibility.
AFAIK, those are all enabled and working correctly, they just dont show much. But I will check again.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
I am aware of that. It's online locking that I am after. Though, I will concede that any locking scheme has to plan for both online and offline. I like sync because of local performance and offline availability, but it really feels like it is best for non shared files. When you add multiple users into the mix, almost everything goes out the window, especially when and if they go offline.
Everything is best for non-shared files
SMB shines at "always online, always nearly local" files because it handles offline so poorly. It's a balance. To handle offline or very distant (e.g. high latency) networks well, you have to sacrifice locking.
-
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
- We have two different versions of the windows sync client, 2.5.0 and 2.5.1, both say they are the most current and there are no updates. I have tried both on a second computer, and both versions will not show the sync icons, they just look like regular folders. The icons work fine on my end.
What mechanism are you using for installing them?
I am just using the same windows installer exe, at least in the case of the 2.5.0 which is what I have where the icons work. The 2.5.1 came from the download link inside the NC web UI
-
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
I am aware of that. It's online locking that I am after. Though, I will concede that any locking scheme has to plan for both online and offline. I like sync because of local performance and offline availability, but it really feels like it is best for non shared files. When you add multiple users into the mix, almost everything goes out the window, especially when and if they go offline.
Everything is best for non-shared files
SMB shines at "always online, always nearly local" files because it handles offline so poorly. It's a balance. To handle offline or very distant (e.g. high latency) networks well, you have to sacrifice locking.
I understand that, but it also means that my users will be forced to deal with a limitation that is a sacrifice for a feature they don't usually use.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
I am aware of that. It's online locking that I am after. Though, I will concede that any locking scheme has to plan for both online and offline. I like sync because of local performance and offline availability, but it really feels like it is best for non shared files. When you add multiple users into the mix, almost everything goes out the window, especially when and if they go offline.
Everything is best for non-shared files
SMB shines at "always online, always nearly local" files because it handles offline so poorly. It's a balance. To handle offline or very distant (e.g. high latency) networks well, you have to sacrifice locking.
I understand that, but it also means that my users will be forced to deal with a limitation that is a sacrifice for a feature they don't usually use.
Except it also gives them a huge performance leap, which in theory they use every time they touch a file.
-
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
I am aware of that. It's online locking that I am after. Though, I will concede that any locking scheme has to plan for both online and offline. I like sync because of local performance and offline availability, but it really feels like it is best for non shared files. When you add multiple users into the mix, almost everything goes out the window, especially when and if they go offline.
Everything is best for non-shared files
SMB shines at "always online, always nearly local" files because it handles offline so poorly. It's a balance. To handle offline or very distant (e.g. high latency) networks well, you have to sacrifice locking.
I understand that, but it also means that my users will be forced to deal with a limitation that is a sacrifice for a feature they don't usually use.
Except it also gives them a huge performance leap, which in theory they use every time they touch a file.
But with great power comes great responsibility. The conflict mechanism will surely catch them off guard for probably a long time, because it is too subtle.
-
would sharepoint be any better from this standpoint?
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
I am aware of that. It's online locking that I am after. Though, I will concede that any locking scheme has to plan for both online and offline. I like sync because of local performance and offline availability, but it really feels like it is best for non shared files. When you add multiple users into the mix, almost everything goes out the window, especially when and if they go offline.
Everything is best for non-shared files
SMB shines at "always online, always nearly local" files because it handles offline so poorly. It's a balance. To handle offline or very distant (e.g. high latency) networks well, you have to sacrifice locking.
I understand that, but it also means that my users will be forced to deal with a limitation that is a sacrifice for a feature they don't usually use.
Except it also gives them a huge performance leap, which in theory they use every time they touch a file.
But with great power comes great responsibility. The conflict mechanism will surely catch them off guard for probably a long time, because it is too subtle.
It's been a while since I've looked at this type of product or solution, but would a DMS along the lines of Alfresco be better suited to this from the perspective of checking files in and out of the repository? Granted that it will would likely require reworking / rethinking workflows, it might be worth considering, especially given the ability to integrate google docs style editing / collaboration.
http://orderofthebee.org/honeycomb/ was a good starting point when I looked at it a while back, there's also a bunch of resources here https://www.loftux.com/en/products-and-add-ons/alfresco/alfresco-overview
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
CAD files
You don't want to sync this stuff. It's bad for this type.
We have the same thing here, and have tried some things in testing. Large drawings pulling sometimes hundreds or thousands of other drawings to make it. It needs to be on-prem, and should not be synchronized with anything. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen. NC/OneDrive/etc... that type of thing is NOT for this type of files.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
- There doesn't appear to be any log that tracks all activities by all users. I seem to only be able to see activities that are related to the user in question in some way.
have you installed the "Activity" app? Or "Activities for shared file downloads?" Or "Audit / Logging"? We use all of those and have decent visibility.
AFAIK, those are all enabled and working correctly, they just dont show much. But I will check again.
This is apparently a limitation of using group folders, Versioning made it into group folders in NC15, but activities and a trashbin are not included as of yet.
-
@Obsolesce said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
CAD files
You don't want to sync this stuff. It's bad for this type.
We have the same thing here, and have tried some things in testing. Large drawings pulling sometimes hundreds or thousands of other drawings to make it. It needs to be on-prem, and should not be synchronized with anything. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen. NC/OneDrive/etc... that type of thing is NOT for this type of files.
the problem we currently have is that these files are all sitting on local machines only, until the project is finished and it is loaded onto the server. Network performance even on 1gbps just can't cut it. Plus, I am not and have no plans to do any backups of individual workstations, the plan is to get it all on the server somehow. My NC is on prem though, at least for one of my locations.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Obsolesce said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
CAD files
You don't want to sync this stuff. It's bad for this type.
We have the same thing here, and have tried some things in testing. Large drawings pulling sometimes hundreds or thousands of other drawings to make it. It needs to be on-prem, and should not be synchronized with anything. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen. NC/OneDrive/etc... that type of thing is NOT for this type of files.
the problem we currently have is that these files are all sitting on local machines only, until the project is finished and it is loaded onto the server. Network performance even on 1gbps just can't cut it. Plus, I am not and have no plans to do any backups of individual workstations, the plan is to get it all on the server somehow. My NC is on prem though, at least for one of my locations.
Even with a few users with a lot of CAD files on their own individual computers, anyone touching another like file will cause problems. If they are all different, then all is well.
You'll have to pick a person, have them sync their files to the NC server. Then the next person will try to sync to it, and if any of the files the second person tries to sync to it already exist, it won't handle it as expected.
-
@Obsolesce said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Obsolesce said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
CAD files
You don't want to sync this stuff. It's bad for this type.
We have the same thing here, and have tried some things in testing. Large drawings pulling sometimes hundreds or thousands of other drawings to make it. It needs to be on-prem, and should not be synchronized with anything. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen. NC/OneDrive/etc... that type of thing is NOT for this type of files.
the problem we currently have is that these files are all sitting on local machines only, until the project is finished and it is loaded onto the server. Network performance even on 1gbps just can't cut it. Plus, I am not and have no plans to do any backups of individual workstations, the plan is to get it all on the server somehow. My NC is on prem though, at least for one of my locations.
Even with a few users with a lot of CAD files on their own individual computers, anyone touching another like file will cause problems. If they are all different, then all is well.
You'll have to pick a person, have them sync their files to the NC server. Then the next person will try to sync to it, and if any of the files the second person tries to sync to it already exist, it won't handle it as expected.
If everyone uses their own folder on the NC server, that would work better then.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Obsolesce said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
CAD files
You don't want to sync this stuff. It's bad for this type.
We have the same thing here, and have tried some things in testing. Large drawings pulling sometimes hundreds or thousands of other drawings to make it. It needs to be on-prem, and should not be synchronized with anything. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen. NC/OneDrive/etc... that type of thing is NOT for this type of files.
the problem we currently have is that these files are all sitting on local machines only, until the project is finished and it is loaded onto the server. Network performance even on 1gbps just can't cut it. Plus, I am not and have no plans to do any backups of individual workstations, the plan is to get it all on the server somehow. My NC is on prem though, at least for one of my locations.
What CAD suite are you using? Time to start looking at their native server system. Dessault and Autodesk both have something to manage this. It isn't inexpensive but would be better then just SMB.
-
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Obsolesce said in file sharing in the 21st century:
@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:
CAD files
You don't want to sync this stuff. It's bad for this type.
We have the same thing here, and have tried some things in testing. Large drawings pulling sometimes hundreds or thousands of other drawings to make it. It needs to be on-prem, and should not be synchronized with anything. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen. NC/OneDrive/etc... that type of thing is NOT for this type of files.
the problem we currently have is that these files are all sitting on local machines only, until the project is finished and it is loaded onto the server. Network performance even on 1gbps just can't cut it. Plus, I am not and have no plans to do any backups of individual workstations, the plan is to get it all on the server somehow. My NC is on prem though, at least for one of my locations.
I would say re-evaluate this if you really are having this issue. UrBackup would be perfect for this. Setup the UrB server and then install the agents on each of the end points.
From the Server specify what to backup from your user workstations (as you can get really granular) and it just backs up as changes are saved locally to the server.
Problem solved and the capital spend is near zero.
