4 ms·
When I saw this I thought, Finally, A Way to Transfer Large Files. But alas, it is only for small files, up to 100GB. And it gives no indication of using resuma
by angry_octet 7y ago
When I saw this I thought, Finally, A Way to Transfer Large Files. But alas, it is only for small files, up to 100GB. And it gives no indication of using resumable and fault tolerant transfer.
If you want to transfer a large amount of data (like backups or any big data collection, like a couple of years of RAW photos) via the cloud (e.g. because of NAT and firewalls) it is still better to rent a machine from Linode/Digital Ocean/OVH and use a tool like BT Sync or rsync (simple but low bandwidth).
- cpach 7y agoI agree. But maybe that kind of size was not what Dropbox set out to solve with this service.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> And it gives no indication of using resumable ... transfer Don’t you get that from HTTP? And while I’m sure 100 GB is small for your domain whatever that is, surely you can’t be so unaware to know that this is going to be sufficient for the vast majority of consumers, businesses, and academics? I don’t think I’ve ever handled a file that was 100 GB and I’m not a non-technical person.
- angry_octet 7y agoIndividual files sure but apart from sending one file there are many more transfer jobs. People can buy 4TB HDDs from their office supplies store, and the fastest way to transfer data remains putting it in the mail, not because of bandwidth but lack of services. Cloud backup is much cheaper than buying a tape array and administrator, but at present that is all you can do with it -- backup. You should easily be able to have TB of personal data in the cloud and send any file/directory, without worrying about how big it is. Resumable transfers seem to fail a lot with http. Block level differencing (like dedup) can also make things a lot faster.