
Dropbox Has Jumped the Memory Shark - ingve
https://blog.josephscott.org/2019/11/26/dropbox-has-jumped-the-memory-shark/
======
jbc1
For comparison, OneDrive on MacOS is sitting at 85mb for me.

------
mattbillenstein
Use syncthing - open source, free, low resource usage, etc.

~~~
posixplz
Interesting, but no iOS client or WebDAV support. That would prevent me from
using it.

Most developer/engineer types have a private server and that’s a great place
to install Nextcloud. Nextcloud has cross platform clients, supports strong
authenticators (U2F), and open protocols like WebDAV. I even use it to sync
org-mode files across many devices with great success.

~~~
zimpenfish
The lack of (fully working[1]) iOS client is a giant glaring hole in the
SyncThing ecosystem. Which is a shame because it works really well across my
various machines and servers.

[1] fsync() seems to have been abandoned but still partially works on my phone
- only local networks and you have to manually add folders by ID.

~~~
gobengo
Nextcloud has a pretty sweet iOS app that integrates your files stored there
with the iOS 'files' apis.

[https://nextcloud.com/blog/nextcloud-releases-deep-ios-
integ...](https://nextcloud.com/blog/nextcloud-releases-deep-ios-integration/)

(And/or you can use any WebDAV client)

------
chrisseaton
I like applications to be efficient as well, but come on, surely this memory
consumption is broadly pretty reasonable? A few hundred MB?

Also, what is your memory there for, if not to be used? Is Dropbox good at
releasing or allowing memory it no longer needs to be released, paged out, or
processes killed if there is pressure from other applications in the system?
If so, what's the problem with Dropbox using the memory until then?

~~~
72deluxe
I used to run Windows 3.11 on 4MB RAM (it struggled to run Word 6.0 without
insane paging, I was poor) and Windows 95 on 64MB of RAM (4 x 16MB on a 486
DX2 66).

How is this memory usage by Dropbox reasonable? It seems to be another example
of insane bloated memory usage which is not only the trend but the fashion
these days.

Remember, allocation is the enemy of speed. More CPU cycles, more allocations,
more power consumed, shorter battery life on mobile devices (laptops), more
charging of devices, more fossil fuels burned.

~~~
chrisseaton
> How is this memory usage by Dropbox reasonable?

It wouldn't be reasonable on a 4 MB system, but this isn't a 4 MB system, so
how's that relevant to anything?

Why do you have 16 GB of RAM or whatever in your laptop if not for
applications to use?

> allocation is the enemy of speed

But the complaint wasn't the volume of allocation - it was the size of the
working set.

Does reducing that working set perhaps consume more power than allowing it to
sit at the current level? For example an in-memory cache of something could
save power.

I think it's very naive and simplistic to just complain about memory
consumption in isolation. The memory is there as a tool to be used.

~~~
tomatotomato37
I have 16GB of RAM on my work computer so my compiler can process hundreds of
MB worth of source files into a fully functional program in less than 5
seconds. I have it on my home computer so I can run a fully simulated 3D world
inside a videogame at 60FPS. I don't have it so some coder somewhere doesn't
have to add lazy-loading to their file-syncing app.

~~~
cookiecaper
Yes. Dropbox built its reputation on being a reliable, set-it-and-forget-it
background service that kept your files synchronized. Applications that occupy
user attention and serve the explicit purpose of the user may make a variety
of dubious cases for reckless memory consumption, but it's a lot harder to
justify for something that's supposed to be invisible.

