4 ms·

Two things i do not get: - Why can't Google figure out what the conditions which trigger this issue are and add a caveat to the documentation? "Bad things will

Two things i do not get: - Why can't Google figure out what the conditions which trigger this issue are and add a caveat to the documentation? "Bad things will happen if you use more than 500,000 files on a 32 bit client." This would save both their support organization and their customers a lot of pain. - Why does this particular user not give up on Google Drive if it does not work for him, or at least try to figure out what is making it choke and avoid that edge case? It is not like it is the only cloud storage solution out there and finding a new one cannot be more painful than this endless BDSM dance with support.

bad_user 9y ago
> Why can't Google figure out what the conditions which trigger this issue are and add a caveat to the documentation? You can't fix software breakage by adding mentions in random documentation pages. Bad things shouldn't happen if you have more than 500,000 files. And if such things are unavoidable due to limits that are out of Google's control, like from the operating system or the CPU architecture, then the software should warn the user well in advance before any damage occurs. Google has all the manpower it needs. But this is again one of those instances where they show how little they care. Which should have been obvious by now, given that with all of their manpower and virtually unlimited resources, they still haven't released a Linux client. This is why I'm staying on Dropbox btw. My data is too important for me to entrust a company that will sell cloud storage as a complementary to something else.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- appachai 9y ago
  > Bad things shouldn't happen if you have more than 500,000 files. No one in the world has a solution which works for this case. I think the best thing for Google to do here is to document it like dropbox and get out of the blame game.
gcb0 9y ago
if they cared they could fix the bug too. Google is now a huge, slow corporation. you don't get promoted by working on old and boring projects. everyone fight to get into the new sexy rewrite of something that is already somewhat successful. yeah they can screw up and kill features, but users will continue to use ensuring your promotions. in a huge corp, do not assume that just because the little support guy understand your pain, the engineers behind will move a finger.
- untangle 9y ago
  >> Google is now a huge, slow corporation. They have been huge and slow for many years. Google Drive is non-core for them, which doesn't help. They probably have the data on "number of files per user." But if you are too far into the tail, they probably care little. Now if this were an ad-related issue....
- victorhooi 9y ago
  We do care, and it's certainly something we have been actively working on. However, the fact that other desktop sync clients from other providers exhibit similar performance characteristics possibly indicate that it's not as easy to solve as a naive first pass would assume.
  - danieldk 9y ago
    We do care, and it's certainly something we have been actively working on. Did you read the time line? Even if his issue is directly being worked on, which is doubtful if you look at how many layers of clueless tech support this apparently goes, this is terrible customer support. If you promise to reply in 48 hours, reply in 48 hours. Give the customer compensation for the months the product did not work properly and maybe a gift voucher for all the effort they put into helping to solve this bug.
  - inferiorhuman 9y ago
    > that it's not as easy to solve as a naive first pass would assume. Because Google doesn't have the resources to tackle challenging problems? lol. A difficult to solve problem on its own is one thing, but the comically awful support Google offers indicates that it's more likely a "we don't care" versus a "we don't know how" problem.
victorhooi 9y ago
I don't profess to being an expert on this issue - but it's a bit more complex than simply "We don't work at X files". There's a bunch of factors, including the user's own environment, and lengths of certain fields that can affect what the exact limit is. Memory is a moving target. Other clients exhibit similar behaviour - e.g. Dropbox states a limit of 300,000 (https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit), and from my own informal testing, I know Box.net also exhibits odd behaviour as well. (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but the above comments are purely my own).
pricechild 9y ago
Why don't they give up? I can't imagine that's going to help their case getting refunded? I'd be amazed if paying customers weren't given 'slightly' better service, and that'd just make things more difficult dropping back to the lower tier?
- laurentoget 9y ago
  How much time are you willing to spend emailing a broken customer support organization to run after a refund?

bad_user 9y ago

> Why can't Google figure out what the conditions which trigger this issue are and add a caveat to the documentation? You can't fix software breakage by adding mentions in random documentation pages. Bad things shouldn't happen if you have more than 500,000 files. And if such things are unavoidable due to limits that are out of Google's control, like from the operating system or the CPU architecture, then the software should warn the user well in advance before any damage occurs. Google has all the manpower it needs. But this is again one of those instances where they show how little they care. Which should have been obvious by now, given that with all of their manpower and virtually unlimited resources, they still haven't released a Linux client. This is why I'm staying on Dropbox btw. My data is too important for me to entrust a company that will sell cloud storage as a complementary to something else.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
appachai 9y ago
> Bad things shouldn't happen if you have more than 500,000 files. No one in the world has a solution which works for this case. I think the best thing for Google to do here is to document it like dropbox and get out of the blame game.

gcb0 9y ago

if they cared they could fix the bug too. Google is now a huge, slow corporation. you don't get promoted by working on old and boring projects. everyone fight to get into the new sexy rewrite of something that is already somewhat successful. yeah they can screw up and kill features, but users will continue to use ensuring your promotions. in a huge corp, do not assume that just because the little support guy understand your pain, the engineers behind will move a finger.

untangle 9y ago
>> Google is now a huge, slow corporation. They have been huge and slow for many years. Google Drive is non-core for them, which doesn't help. They probably have the data on "number of files per user." But if you are too far into the tail, they probably care little. Now if this were an ad-related issue....
victorhooi 9y ago
We do care, and it's certainly something we have been actively working on. However, the fact that other desktop sync clients from other providers exhibit similar performance characteristics possibly indicate that it's not as easy to solve as a naive first pass would assume.
- danieldk 9y ago
  We do care, and it's certainly something we have been actively working on. Did you read the time line? Even if his issue is directly being worked on, which is doubtful if you look at how many layers of clueless tech support this apparently goes, this is terrible customer support. If you promise to reply in 48 hours, reply in 48 hours. Give the customer compensation for the months the product did not work properly and maybe a gift voucher for all the effort they put into helping to solve this bug.
- inferiorhuman 9y ago
  > that it's not as easy to solve as a naive first pass would assume. Because Google doesn't have the resources to tackle challenging problems? lol. A difficult to solve problem on its own is one thing, but the comically awful support Google offers indicates that it's more likely a "we don't care" versus a "we don't know how" problem.

victorhooi 9y ago

I don't profess to being an expert on this issue - but it's a bit more complex than simply "We don't work at X files". There's a bunch of factors, including the user's own environment, and lengths of certain fields that can affect what the exact limit is. Memory is a moving target. Other clients exhibit similar behaviour - e.g. Dropbox states a limit of 300,000 (https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit), and from my own informal testing, I know Box.net also exhibits odd behaviour as well. (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but the above comments are purely my own).

pricechild 9y ago

Why don't they give up? I can't imagine that's going to help their case getting refunded? I'd be amazed if paying customers weren't given 'slightly' better service, and that'd just make things more difficult dropping back to the lower tier?

laurentoget 9y ago
How much time are you willing to spend emailing a broken customer support organization to run after a refund?