I hear people say that about Nextcloud often, which is part of why I haven’t bothered setting it up yet.

Is there a technical reason why it’s slow and clunky? Any problematic choices with how it was built?

@muelltonne@feddit.de
link
fedilink
English
118M

Yeah, and don’t pretend that comparable software like Google Drive, Sharepoint or Dropbox is faster.

@TCB13@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
-18M

Dropbox is faster.

Dropbox is A LOT faster than NC ever was. But if you want to talk about speeds and reliability then use Synching. Add FileBrowser if you want to have a WebUI on a central “server” to access all your files and you’ll be 100x better than the garbage that NC offers.

Björn Tantau
link
fedilink
English
08M

I compare it to a samba or (s)ftp share. I wish it was similar in speed and ease of use.

It’s become better since I migrated over to PostgreSQL. But it’s still not great.

Why would you compare to something so utterly different?

Björn Tantau
link
fedilink
English
48M

I’d argue that the primary function of Nextcloud is to serve files. Of course the other services lack other stuff, which is why I’m still using Nextcloud. But I still wish its performance was similar to pure file servers.

@cron@feddit.de
link
fedilink
English
88M

I think the file server analogy isn’t really fair. Nextcloud is better compared to Microsoft 365 or Google GSuite.

All of these offer file storage, but also much more.

Björn Tantau
link
fedilink
English
28M

Sure. But serving files is the core functionality of Nextcloud. You can remove every other functionality. But the files app cannot be removed.

I disagree. The extras and modularity are the core functionality. If you’re just serving files, there’s SFTP, WebDAV, etc.

@owen@lemmy.ca
link
fedilink
English
48M

I agree. They’re suffering from feature creep I fear

My install is basically instant. Might be your connection?

PostgreSQL is definitely a boost to performance, especially if you offload the DB to a dedicated server (depending on load, can even be a cluster)

Nevertheless, it probably has much to do with how it’s deployed and how many proxies are in front of it, and/or VPN. If you have large numbers of containers and small CPU/low memory hardware, and either running everything on one machine or have some other limitations, it’ll be slow.

Admittedly, I’m not very familiar with the codebase, but I feel Apache isn’t improving the speed either. Not exactly sure how PHP is nowadays with concurrency and async, but generally a microservice type architecture is nice because you can add more workers/instances wherever a bottleneck emerges.

Apache is plenty fast enough for self-hosting scenarios.

Create a post

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

  • 1 user online
  • 136 users / day
  • 427 users / week
  • 1.16K users / month
  • 3.85K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 3.68K Posts
  • 74.2K Comments
  • Modlog