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
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

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

    • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            10 months ago

            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@swg-empire.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

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

              • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

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

      • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • atzanteol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Apache is plenty fast enough for self-hosting scenarios.

    • TCB13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.