But the people managing and creating them fall into the same old pitfalls, because software product development is not required to avoid them. And because they're complex, they each suffer from the standard problems that happen to software products (many books written about them). They're often complex and need to interoperate with one another, yet are built by separate teams. Three, it's genuinely hard to create groupware products that are both high-quality and useful. Then try to integrate different products, and you're really integrating different messes. Combine that with a lack of investment or cost-cutting, or some of the lead product people leaving, and the product gets worse. Buying one of these often leaves you with a huge mess on your hands. You may not know this, but startups tend to churn out some horrifying, janky code just to get themselves off the ground. Two, often these products are actually acquisitions of startups. If it were a startup flush with VC money, they could invest all they have into the product, but at an enterprise, it's often the opposite. It's common for a product to get a low level of investment that only meets the needs of adding new features without ensuring quality. That means they have a budget, timelines, expected revenue figures/costs. The products are often managed as independent business cases. One, often these products are made by companies where the products are not their primary revenue source. So while they "admit" to 4 objects, that's likely an under count because I wouldn't expect them to regularly check if all 100 trillion objects are accessible because of how long that would take. The saving grace is that most objects aren't accessed (maybe not ever again) & they detect & correct durability errors on access to ensure that accessed objects definitely aren't lost. With 11 9s of durability annually you'd expect to lose 100 objects a year. 2 years ago, S3 stored 100 trillion objects. My hunch is that the data is permanently lost.Īdditionally, S3 stores an enormous amount of data such that probabilistically they're bound to lose something to HW failure. That's a huge part of why S3 doesn't really do a whole lot of feature development (well that + it's hard to maintain a 20 yold codebase).Īlso, we're talking about Google Drive here which isn't GCS (Google's S3 competitor) but a higher-level product layered on top of GCS but with it's own book keeping / ACLs etc. However, such models do not (& really cannot) account for the existence of bugs or introduction of new ones. replication and/or erasure coding) and the durability guarantee is about HW failures only. What this means is that they model a "correctly functioning system" (i.e. Your OSes have more #UAC that Vista now, something you made fun of, they aren’t fluid anymore.S3 is designed for 11 9s of durability. if you’re listening, doubt it, get your *stuff* together already. I think it has surpassed Apple’s own now. You could use as an alternative some other thing self-hosted, like Nextcloud and leverage the excellent storage backplane your unit does have and, leverage the second-to-none customer support the app has. My biggest issue overall though, is that it constantly disconnects and you had to relink as if it was synced for the first time this could very easily cause corrupt data somewhere. If you do this so it stops bugging then it’d complain of the cert not matching the SLDN or whatever QuickConnnectID represents in the unit. It still keeps pushing to connect instead using QuickConnectID even using a certificate-validated-FQDN in the local network. I was dreaming to get this app before so if I could get rid of the resource-murdering Resilio Sync, but when I first downloaded a beta version of DSM that had it I felt it was exactly the same issues DS Cloud had/has with a plastic-ier look. Install Synology Drive on your Mac using the same steps for Windows OS above.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |