SharePoint Online as a File Server
-
@dashrender said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Anyone here know of a company that completely ditched local fileshares and moved wholly to ODfB and Sharepoint?
We wanted to but it wasn't good. We went to Nextcloud instead, which is way more enterprise than ODfB.
-
@dashrender said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Anyone here know of a company that completely ditched local fileshares and moved wholly to ODfB and Sharepoint?
Right now, I use a combination of Windows or Linux file servers for common shares and Nextcloud for users data only.
-
@jblaze no way with more than 1Tb of litlle files.
The dropbox client at startup can get a modern i5 with a good ssd to it’s knee at every user login.
The smart sync feature looks useful, but many software doesn’t work giod with that. Either, re-sync a big file often can be painful for your wan connection.
You can drop smart sync but then you need 1-2 tb of good storage PER CLIENT to match the performance of a simple fileserver… -
Is anybody in the world happy with Sharepoint Online or OneDrive for Business?
I cant think of two worse 'solutions' for file storage/sharing. -
@momurda said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Is anybody in the world happy with Sharepoint Online or OneDrive for Business?
I cant think of two worse 'solutions' for file storage/sharing.Not of which I am aware. I like Sharepoint conceptually, but not in practice.
-
@nerdydad said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@jblaze You backup your pst files to the same systems as the email servers? You might as well backup the pst files directly onto the Exchange server in house.
They're actually saved locally in our Archive Server, just weighing options on using SharePoint online and ditching the infrastructure.
@scottalanmiller said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@momurda said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Is anybody in the world happy with Sharepoint Online or OneDrive for Business?
I cant think of two worse 'solutions' for file storage/sharing.Not of which I am aware. I like Sharepoint conceptually, but not in practice.
My thoughts exactly. In concept, it's a great idea until you look at the planning, execution, and maintenance of the service by the end-user. It seems like a mixed bag of experiences wavering on "it's ok" or "it isn't good" dependent on people's environment.
-
@jblaze said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@scottalanmiller said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@momurda said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Is anybody in the world happy with Sharepoint Online or OneDrive for Business?
I cant think of two worse 'solutions' for file storage/sharing.Not of which I am aware. I like Sharepoint conceptually, but not in practice.
My thoughts exactly. In concept, it's a great idea until you look at the planning, execution, and maintenance of the service by the end-user. It seems like a mixed bag of experiences wavering on "it's ok" or "it isn't good" dependent on people's environment.
If you have nothing but IT people using it, or someone who is dedicated to managing it, it might be okay. But the platform is bloated, slow, and expensive even when working great. And it almost never is. People just start using it like a big shared folder and it all falls apart.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@jblaze said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@scottalanmiller said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@momurda said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Is anybody in the world happy with Sharepoint Online or OneDrive for Business?
I cant think of two worse 'solutions' for file storage/sharing.Not of which I am aware. I like Sharepoint conceptually, but not in practice.
My thoughts exactly. In concept, it's a great idea until you look at the planning, execution, and maintenance of the service by the end-user. It seems like a mixed bag of experiences wavering on "it's ok" or "it isn't good" dependent on people's environment.
If you have nothing but IT people using it, or someone who is dedicated to managing it, it might be okay. But the platform is bloated, slow, and expensive even when working great. And it almost never is. People just start using it like a big shared folder and it all falls apart.
Yea, but you can have 500,000 site collections per tenant! The best part about that, I dont even know anybody that knows what a site collection is.
-
@momurda said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@scottalanmiller said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@jblaze said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@scottalanmiller said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@momurda said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Is anybody in the world happy with Sharepoint Online or OneDrive for Business?
I cant think of two worse 'solutions' for file storage/sharing.Not of which I am aware. I like Sharepoint conceptually, but not in practice.
My thoughts exactly. In concept, it's a great idea until you look at the planning, execution, and maintenance of the service by the end-user. It seems like a mixed bag of experiences wavering on "it's ok" or "it isn't good" dependent on people's environment.
If you have nothing but IT people using it, or someone who is dedicated to managing it, it might be okay. But the platform is bloated, slow, and expensive even when working great. And it almost never is. People just start using it like a big shared folder and it all falls apart.
Yea, but you can have 500,000 site collections per tenant! The best part about that, I dont even know anybody that knows what a site collection is.
It means a group of Sharepoint SItes under one main Sharepoint site. Also make sure to enable recycle bin for all your Sharepoint Sites, otherwise recovery is a pain.
-
@gjacobse said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Ugh - Sharepoint of QB? Forget it (IMO)
Go with a local NAS with remote backup to something like Backblaze or such...If you want to use QuickBooks in multiuser mode, you need a Windows box to host the company file so that you can run the QuickBooks database manager for each version of QuickBooks company files you're hosting. For that reason, a NAS won't do.
-
@mike-davis said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@gjacobse said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Ugh - Sharepoint of QB? Forget it (IMO)
Go with a local NAS with remote backup to something like Backblaze or such...If you want to use QuickBooks in multiuser mode, you need a Windows box to host the company file so that you can run the QuickBooks database manager for each version of QuickBooks company files you're hosting. For that reason, a NAS won't do.
I thought they had a version that runs under some Linux distro last time I had to deal with that junk. Just the server portion of course.
-
@travisdh1 said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
I thought they had a version that runs under some Linux distro last time I had to deal with that junk. Just the server portion of course.
There is. When I think NAS box, I think commercial NAS box. I guess you could build a linux server and call it a NAS, but that's not what I was thinking of. If the commercial ones give you root access, I suppose you could install the Linux QuickBooks manager.
-
More information on Quickbooks and Linux below (Not that I would encourage it)
https://community.intuit.com/articles/1552445-install-linux-database-server-manager -
@dbeato said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
More information on Quickbooks and Linux below (Not that I would encourage it)
https://community.intuit.com/articles/1552445-install-linux-database-server-managerI'm right there with you. QuickBooks has problems enough of its own without involving two operating systems.
-
@mike-davis said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@dbeato said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
More information on Quickbooks and Linux below (Not that I would encourage it)
https://community.intuit.com/articles/1552445-install-linux-database-server-managerI'm right there with you. QuickBooks has problems enough of its own without involving two operating systems.
Two? Looks like the database only goes on one. No additional complexity. But solves some major licensing costs. Windows Server + CALs just for QB is pretty expensive.
