Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

This client is still a headache when your users have thousands of files. #6501

Closed
wmeneses opened this issue Mar 1, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed
Labels
enhancement enhancement of a already implemented feature/code feature: 💽 virtual filesystem

Comments

@wmeneses
Copy link

wmeneses commented Mar 1, 2024

Unfortunately I have to synchronize thousands of files and hundreds of folders despite having a great architecture, it is almost impossible to keep customers happy with this client.

Why does it just work at least like the android version?
Why does the user have to wait hours for his files to show up (3 hours for 380,000 documents)?

I have gone out to buy webdav (webdrive) clients (I have to do it because microsoft little by little wants to kill the webadav service)...so the users don't have to wait. please consider not doing that sync just show the files and that's it like Google Drive does. and don't come to tell me that google is google, I have tried nextcloud in clusters with redis SDD S3 and how much stuff there is, but I see that this client is simply supremely slow.

@wmeneses wmeneses added the enhancement enhancement of a already implemented feature/code label Mar 1, 2024
@marcotrevisan
Copy link

The Mac OS implementation is going to change in favor of a FileProvider approach, which changes things radically but unfortunately that API is available on MacOS only.
That said, I think the root cause of this issue was the initial approach, which seems to have been more like “wrapping rsync” (good for machine-to-machine) rather than decorating a caching proxy and expose that as a “network drive” of some kind (better choice for machine-to-human).

On the good side, it also seems like much has been done to ease rough edges out.
Hopefully we’ll soon see a more minimalistic approach in syncing, where the local dataset and the impact of a change will be kept minimal and only a fraction of the folder structure is kept in sync.

One step in that direction would be having a right-click mouse action (available in virtual drive mode too) on folders and be able to remove that folder (and its contents) from sync, leaving it grayed (plus an “add” right-click action available) instead of having to do that in a config panel; that alone would drastically reduce the problems. Automate that using a lazy approach and you’re done…

@wmeneses
Copy link
Author

wmeneses commented Mar 2, 2024

Well I wish, I still defend this kind of products, but when you face so many problems you think about going back to google, you end up investing more money in infrastructure, storage to guarantee a good service.

@marcotrevisan
Copy link

This is related to #4424

@joshtrichards
Copy link
Member

From the sounds of it, this is a duplicate of #4424. If not, @wmeneses, please clarify and I'll re-open.

@joshtrichards joshtrichards closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Aug 16, 2024
@joshtrichards
Copy link
Member

Duplicate of #4424

@joshtrichards joshtrichards marked this as a duplicate of #4424 Aug 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement enhancement of a already implemented feature/code feature: 💽 virtual filesystem
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants