I tried running nextcloud on an allwinner RiscV chip and it was dead slow lol
Comment on What's wrong with Nextcloud, and why is it slow/clunky?
GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
Nextcloud is slow and clunky if you run it on a banana.
Run it on a “normal” server and everything is smooth.
jr52@lemmy.world 6 months ago
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
In fairness anything is slow on lower end hardware. The tradeoff is that it is very power efficient
TCB13@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Run it on a “normal” server and everything is smooth.
Sure until you try with a high end CPU on NVMe storage all kinds of caching, redis etc. and you find you it doesn’t perform particularly better.
GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
I’m no hardware person but I don’t have redis or caching enabled and it works fine
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
It runs fine in a VM with a few cores, 4gb of ram and Sata SSDs
The entire Nextcloud folder is on a network share as well.
rambos@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Im running it on celeron g3930 and its great. I did remove most extensions (this was the trick I believe) and using MySQL. I have only 2 users tho
muelltonne@feddit.de 6 months ago
Yeah, and don’t pretend that comparable software like Google Drive, Sharepoint or Dropbox is faster.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 6 months ago
I compare it to a samba or (s)ftp share. I wish it was similar in speed and ease of use.
It’s become better since I migrated over to PostgreSQL. But it’s still not great.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 6 months ago
Why would you compare to something so utterly different?
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 6 months ago
I’d argue that the primary function of Nextcloud is to serve files. Of course the other services lack other stuff, which is why I’m still using Nextcloud. But I still wish its performance was similar to pure file servers.
dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
PostgreSQL is definitely a boost to performance, especially if you offload the DB to a dedicated server (depending on load, can even be a cluster)
Nevertheless, it probably has much to do with how it’s deployed and how many proxies are in front of it, and/or VPN. If you have large numbers of containers and small CPU/low memory hardware, and either running everything on one machine or have some other limitations, it’ll be slow.
Admittedly, I’m not very familiar with the codebase, but I feel Apache isn’t improving the speed either. Not exactly sure how PHP is nowadays with concurrency and async, but generally a microservice type architecture is nice because you can add more workers/instances wherever a bottleneck emerges.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Apache is plenty fast enough for self-hosting scenarios.
GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
My install is basically instant. Might be your connection?
TCB13@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Dropbox is A LOT faster than NC ever was. But if you want to talk about speeds and reliability then use Synching. Add FileBrowser if you want to have a WebUI on a central “server” to access all your files and you’ll be 100x better than the garbage that NC offers.