I really wish WebDAV were more popular --- ages ago, back when moving large files was difficult and I worked at a printing company we would have regular difficulties with customers connecting to our FTP site (on at least one occasion resulting in tears of frustration on the part of a customer).
I (stupidly) pointed out that WebDAV was natively supported by both Windows and Mac OS and was quite simple to connect to, and then burned all of my political capital at the company arguing for its adoption --- when we finally got to a meeting on it, rather than simply enable the WebDAV service on the existing FTP Server, it was presented as if I was arguing for a new server, and that said new server should come out of my department's budget....
I wonder isn't WebDAV horrendously slow for you? I have selfhosted nextCloud and sending 1GB file was a nightmare (over WiFi). It took ages and didn't finish at the end. I did fall back to usb pendrive... I would like to have something that is not in PHP I guess, this might be the bottleneck
Oh ! The performance table on github is not rendered. If you look at the same page on https://fossil.kd2.org/karadav/doc/main/README.md KaraDAV is very close to apache mod_dav module and way faster than NextCloud.
> KaraDAV performance was very close to mod_dav, and NextCloud performance was incredibly poor.
Sometimes the WebDAV client is to blame, especially clients provided by the OS itself, awful performance.
Nowdays i just use (encrypted) SMB over the internet, performance is great and it works on all major systems without additional software. Basically the best and easiest way to transfer (large) files over the network.
Maybe that's just a product of next cloud's heaviness in general and not a webdav problem? I think that might be the point of this, just a very light webdav implementation with support for nextcloud clients (for basic file functionality not all the other nextcloud features)
I really wish WebDAV were more popular --- ages ago, back when moving large files was difficult and I worked at a printing company we would have regular difficulties with customers connecting to our FTP site (on at least one occasion resulting in tears of frustration on the part of a customer).
I (stupidly) pointed out that WebDAV was natively supported by both Windows and Mac OS and was quite simple to connect to, and then burned all of my political capital at the company arguing for its adoption --- when we finally got to a meeting on it, rather than simply enable the WebDAV service on the existing FTP Server, it was presented as if I was arguing for a new server, and that said new server should come out of my department's budget....
I wonder isn't WebDAV horrendously slow for you? I have selfhosted nextCloud and sending 1GB file was a nightmare (over WiFi). It took ages and didn't finish at the end. I did fall back to usb pendrive... I would like to have something that is not in PHP I guess, this might be the bottleneck
Oh ! The performance table on github is not rendered. If you look at the same page on https://fossil.kd2.org/karadav/doc/main/README.md KaraDAV is very close to apache mod_dav module and way faster than NextCloud.
> KaraDAV performance was very close to mod_dav, and NextCloud performance was incredibly poor.
Are you the author?
No not at all. I happen to read the website a couple of weeks ago.
Sometimes the WebDAV client is to blame, especially clients provided by the OS itself, awful performance.
Nowdays i just use (encrypted) SMB over the internet, performance is great and it works on all major systems without additional software. Basically the best and easiest way to transfer (large) files over the network.
Maybe that's just a product of next cloud's heaviness in general and not a webdav problem? I think that might be the point of this, just a very light webdav implementation with support for nextcloud clients (for basic file functionality not all the other nextcloud features)
I use ngx_http_dav. It is faster than samba on my network. I also don't run PHP anything.