Re: Use sharepoint as normal file server
From: Todd Klindt (usenet_at_klindt.org)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: Todd Klindt: "Re: Authentication WebPart"
- Previous message: Mark Pfeifer: "Re: Creating multiple Virtual servers"
- In reply to: David McKenzie: "Re: Use sharepoint as normal file server"
- Next in thread: Jan Viegand: "Re: Use sharepoint as normal file server"
- Reply: Jan Viegand: "Re: Use sharepoint as normal file server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:42:44 -0500
Not only is it slower, it takes more disk space. SQL adds data to the
files, which increases their size. Then there is the disk expense of
indexing. The added database sizes are then going to start impacting your
backup and restore windows. Also, restoring files individually is no big
deal. Restoring an entire database to a different server so that you can
extract one file is a much bigger deal. WSS also seems to have problems
with larger files when they are being uploaded. There is some issue with
memory utilization as the file is being uploaded.
Considering all the things that others have mentioned, and the points I made
above, WSS is no substitute for a file server, in my opinion.
tk
"David McKenzie" <DavidMcKenzie@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:e4g%23OGDcEHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> my .02
> yes, access is slower retrieving files from a database than from the file
> system
> perceptably? you have to judge that for yourself
> the most common performance bugaboo about remote access of sharepoint
isn't
> files
> it's the initial site page loads - there's more than one thread on that
> already
>
> as for security
> the phrase "its secure because its SSL" evokes chuckes to guffaws (at
least
> amongst my acquaintance)
> if you *really* care about your data - you *will* establish a VPN
> the question i always ask is
> "am I a target or just another address?"
> If the answer is "I am a target" I would advise some in-depth analysis of
> risk/convenience and data classification in deciding whether you really
want
> to enable remote access.
> With Sharepoint or any other option.
>
>
> Otherwise I would set up a test case and try it out.
> Milage seems to really vary on remote performance issues
> And it doesn't sound like you have a lot of resources to dedicate to
> resolving problems.
>
>
> "Jan Viegand" <news@FJERNjanviegand.dk> wrote in message
> news:OcJi2BBcEHA.2880@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Mike Walsh" <englantilainen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:CE6DF079-6C3A-4FA8-9553-DD6A220CAB24@microsoft.com...
> > > I don't see much point in transfering files to Windows SharePoint
> Services
> > (or SPS 2003) if you then don't intend using WSS functions to access
them.
> > >
> >
> > The point is to have access to the files directly from outside the
office
> > without having to establish VPN or other kind of remote access. This
also
> > gives possibility to access the files from any browser, thus not
> necessarily
> > from your own PC (a kind of emergency access, just in case).
> >
> > > If you are going to mess about with mapping drives to folders under
> > Sharepoint as you write then what is the point of moving them to WSS in
> the
> > first place - you might as well just leave them where they are.
> > >
> >
> > Well, mapping drives is no mess. I am more considering whether this is a
> > security problem and also gives a slower access to the files being in
the
> > database in addition to possible other limitations.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > ...>
> > >
> > > "Jan Viegand" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am considering to move all files from our normal file server to
> > folders
> > > > under Sharepoint. The idea is in an easy way to get access from
> outside
> > to
> > > > files without needing to set up VPN. The access should naturally be
> > secure,
> > > > preferable by using SSL. We could then map the drives to the web
> folders
> > > > under Sharepoint, which would not change the way that we work with
the
> > > > files.
> > > >
> > > > Question is if there are some desadvantages with this setup, such as
> > more
> > > > slow use, security, limitations on file naming etc.
> > > >
> > > > We are just three people in the company and the server is a small
> > mini-itx
> > > > with a VIA processor and OS is Win SBS 2003.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for any comment.
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Todd Klindt: "Re: Authentication WebPart"
- Previous message: Mark Pfeifer: "Re: Creating multiple Virtual servers"
- In reply to: David McKenzie: "Re: Use sharepoint as normal file server"
- Next in thread: Jan Viegand: "Re: Use sharepoint as normal file server"
- Reply: Jan Viegand: "Re: Use sharepoint as normal file server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
