5 ms·

> [Nextcloud] was a resource hog that was eating up too much everything on my modest VPS. I've seen comments like this in multiple occasions. Is it really that

by j1elo 5y ago

> [Nextcloud] was a resource hog that was eating up too much everything on my modest VPS. I've seen comments like this in multiple occasions. Is it really that bad? I guess if there was a flagrant performance bug, it would have been sorted out with time, so the only remaining explanation is that the code is really poorly laid out, or with design flaws that cause so many performance problems for users. However next to each "it's a resource hog" there is always another comment saying "it works fantastically well", so I never know what to think (sort of trying it myself, but I'm not that interested in the issue)

BrandoElFollito 5y ago
I tried both and stayed with Nextcloud because of some features (especially sharing and specifically private links). I have a ~5 years old server (Intel Skylake, 8 GB RAM) on which I run a bunch od docker containers (about 30). One of them is Nextcloud and the load average is 0.8-1.0. This is for an average of 2 users (me and the rest of my family that in total uses the server as I do myself). Not a very scientific comparison, but I never had any performance issues.
MaXtreeM 5y ago
The Nextcloud Windows desktop client is very poorly written. We needed an in-house file hosting solution to replace really old Samba shares and Nextcloud seemed like a great option because we also were looking for a non-Google alternative to Google Docs/Drive (one of our clients has anti-Google policy). After moving all files to Nextcloud server everyone (company of 20+ people) installed Nextcloud Windows Desktop client and connected to it with only virtual files option set (nothing is transfered until opened/edited). The initial "sync" after first seup took about 2-3 days to complete for everyone. Reason? Probably too many small files. The share contained about 300+GB of data in around 500k files (not sure about that number only a guess). Nextcloud checks every single file with server which computes hash for it which is stored locally. You can find threads on their community forum or reddit by people experiencing same slow behavior when they have a lot of small files. There were some promises from devs to resolve it with the latest client update but we didn't verify it yet.
gpvos 5y ago
The hogged resource for me is disk space. The more recent versions are bundling more and more features like a web-based word processor etc. that are just useless baggage for me. (I do like the calendar and contact sync.) I have a small hosted site with a tiny personal Nextcloud instance, just for sharing a handful of files, plus a small Wordpress site, and I had to upgrade from 500 MB to 1 GB to fit it in and also be able to run the upgrader.

by j1elo 5y ago

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

I tried both and stayed with Nextcloud because of some features (especially sharing and specifically private links). I have a ~5 years old server (Intel Skylake, 8 GB RAM) on which I run a bunch od docker containers (about 30). One of them is Nextcloud and the load average is 0.8-1.0. This is for an average of 2 users (me and the rest of my family that in total uses the server as I do myself). Not a very scientific comparison, but I never had any performance issues.

MaXtreeM 5y ago

The Nextcloud Windows desktop client is very poorly written. We needed an in-house file hosting solution to replace really old Samba shares and Nextcloud seemed like a great option because we also were looking for a non-Google alternative to Google Docs/Drive (one of our clients has anti-Google policy). After moving all files to Nextcloud server everyone (company of 20+ people) installed Nextcloud Windows Desktop client and connected to it with only virtual files option set (nothing is transfered until opened/edited). The initial "sync" after first seup took about 2-3 days to complete for everyone. Reason? Probably too many small files. The share contained about 300+GB of data in around 500k files (not sure about that number only a guess). Nextcloud checks every single file with server which computes hash for it which is stored locally. You can find threads on their community forum or reddit by people experiencing same slow behavior when they have a lot of small files. There were some promises from devs to resolve it with the latest client update but we didn't verify it yet.

gpvos 5y ago

The hogged resource for me is disk space. The more recent versions are bundling more and more features like a web-based word processor etc. that are just useless baggage for me. (I do like the calendar and contact sync.) I have a small hosted site with a tiny personal Nextcloud instance, just for sharing a handful of files, plus a small Wordpress site, and I had to upgrade from 500 MB to 1 GB to fit it in and also be able to run the upgrader.