Slashdot Mirror
OneDrive Delivers Unlimited Cloud Storage To Office 365 Subscribers
First time accepted submitter FlyHelicopters writes "Dropbox, Google, Microsoft, and others have been competing to become your favorite place to store stuff in the cloud. Just this past June, Microsoft upgraded Office 365 users from 25GB to 1TB, now they are upping the ante with unlimited OneDrive storage. There remains a single file size limit of 10GB per file, it is not clear if that limit will be removed with this upgrade.
Wha?
when most of your subscribers have an upstream bandwidth of 1mbps or less, does it matter whether their storage limit is 1 TB or 100000 TB?
> now they are upping the ante with unlimited OneDrive storage.
Think of the Pr0n! You could put the entire country's Pr0n in the cloud!
But seriously, it'll be "unlimited" until disk space becomes an issue. Which is to say, it's unlimited until it isn't.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Give us the real details that matter, like Terms of Service.
I'm using a tiny fraction of the 5Tb they already give me even though I put all my photo's, music, home video, documents, etc up there. So it's already basically unlimited.
What a gift to the NSA!
46137
1TB ought to be enough for anybody
the 10 Gig limit doesn't even work for most people, its still limited to 2047 MB files.
their marketing is just spouting random limits they can't even support inside the SharePoint structure that is OneDrive
... I don't think that means what they think it means. I have a gigabit connection to the internet, assuming I could saturate 75% of it, that's about 250 terabytes/month. What are they going to do when someone with bandwidth to burn decides to fill up their infrastructure?
OneDrive Delivers Unlimited Cloud Storage To Office 365 Subscribers...for now.
Clouds evaporate, people.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
It seems when it comes to mobile data, "unlimited" always means unlimited up to a point, when the service gets throttled unless you pay more. So "unlimited within the envelope of activity that we decide to allow". Even having no information about this particular offer, I would guess there is either a "reasonable use" clause hidden somewhere in terms of service, or somehow being able to throttle the service, e.g. by limiting upload bandwidth.
"Unlimited" seems to be one of those words that are used mainly for marketing, leading consumers to think it actually means there is no limit - but then redefining the meaning of unlimited in terms of service to something else. Just as misleading as e.g. offering "transfer speeds _up to_ 20 Mbps", "reliability _up to_ 100%", or being "guaranteed to be _possibly_ the best service available". At some point we should have laws against language which is intentionally misleading to consumers.
Dropbox et al have built a business model on selling what MS and Google are now abundantly giving away for free. I'm sure they care quite a bit and it will be interesting to see how they respond in an effort to stay relevant.
Anyone know of such a service that supports the rsync protocol (either over ssh or any other rsync-friendly transport). If so - bandwidth limitations don't suck so bad; since you'd be typically just streaming incremental changes.
This is fun watching the true haters grasp at straws to explain why this must be a bad thing. For god sakes give them credit for once. If DropBox announced this we'd have a collective orgasm.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now I finally have enough storage space for my P0RN!
But clouds also rain... so free delivery coming to OneDrive!
You too can upload your files over to the NSA for scanning.
Unlimited... "for now" Take bitcasa as an example. I bought the unlimited plan a few years ago and just renewed a month ago at $99 a year. They just sent an email that I have until around mid November to get all my data out by around mid November or the data will be deleted unless I subscribe to the new 10 TB plan for $99 a month. There is no chance I could afford that so I am forced to remove my data. Luckily I had most of it already local otherwise it would take a long time to download all of my data from the cloud. I have decided not to be suckered into this one either. I have a feeling Microsoft is just trying to sway people to their online storage and Office suite. Give it 4 or 5 years and I wonder if they might do the same thing (remove unlimited).
From my experience with it, you could have a 10 GB upload pipe and it still won't sync. I have a laptop at work that I was experimenting with it and tried to sync about 30,000 files. It got down to about 7500 files and just stopped and has been stuck there for 3 weeks now. I have no clue what file it is working on or what the problem might be.
Apparently it does have some problems with certain special characters.
Challenge Accepted!
...so I am forced to remove my data
I don't understand this... you didn't have local copies of everything?
While I have lots stored in the cloud, every single bit of it is local as well.
We are a long way off from where I'd ever consider storing stuff ONLY in the cloud.
I'm just hoping that he got his money back if they offered him a years of unlimited, but only gave him three months of it.
XDInd
While you might be right, his words were:
"Luckily I had most of it already local otherwise it would take a long time to download all of my data from the cloud."
He said "most of it"... that is why I replied with my surprise and question...
If you want an offsite backup, get another NAS, make your copy, then put it in a fireproof safe.
It's back! Never Ending Data Bowls starting at $9.99!
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I began to upgrade my O365 account to the Unlimited Preview but the App demanded access all my pics and addresses. Until I research this more, Microsoft can take an unconditional branch off a short pier. It seems a completely unnecessary privacy violation.
If MS actually built a sync client that works well on all platforms (OSX included) then I might actually care about the space upgrade...but since the client sucks (on Windows too) I don't! As long as that is the case I will stick with a competitor.
Do they claim to backup unlimited data volumes? I see a disaster coming.
If all stories came with that disclaimer then all stories would be burdened with a load of FUD.
Computers become outdated and useless, hard drives crash, thumbdrives are lost, LTOs break, RAIDs die, etc etc. Everything is temporary, no single solution is reliable and should be solely relied on. The cloud is no better or worse.
On the other hand TODAY while the cloud is still here OneDrive gives me a really nice service to consolidate my data across multiple machines. So why would I toss a great service today because tomorrow it might go away? I got unlimited Gmail 10 years ago or so and it's a cloud service I still use every day. Maybe gmail will implode some day. And when that day comes... I'll find something better.
Without privacy and/or enforcement of constitutional rights, the storage is worthless. As far as business goes, what happens if data or connectivity is lost during business hours? The potential for information being stolen by governments and private entities is just too great to use such storage services for anything important. Those public SANs are massive 'hack me please' and no-such-letter targets.
If employees need 'unlimited' much storage to do their jobs, then a local san is the most economical option for reasonable performance. Even if employees generate a few hundred to several gigabytes of office documents in their entire careers, local backups with optional offsite/offline media storage service are still more than sufficient. For private/individual use, a crypted disk (or two or three) in a safety deposit box backing up multiple onsite/offline backups works best.
What t a gift to the NSA!
Or not.
Outlook.com and OneDrive have also been updated to use perfect forward security (PFS). In PFS, the keys used for each connection are randomly generated on a per-session basis. This is important because it protects against bulk data collection. Without PFS, if a law enforcement agency or hacker can demand or steal the long-term key used to secure connections, they can use that key to decrypt all historic, recorded sessions. PFS prevents this; compromising one session's key only enables decryption of that session.
This will secure Web access, the OneDrive mobile clients, and the OneDrive desktop clients.
Microsoft is also using certificates with 2048 bit keys on both the Outlook.com and OneDrive Web front-ends, another change planned last December.
Microsoft expands the use of encryption on Outlook, OneDrive [July 1, 2014]
I have 38TB on 360cn, 8TB on 115 they're both free. Gotta love the Chinese. The only problem was translating the desktop software to English.
I hear the storage increase is the result of a new facility being built in Utah...
At a file size of 100 Mb, Word is barely usable (especially if you have Autosave on [1]). I still have nightmares about a job a couple years ago that involved such files.
1: and the larger the file, the more likely you'll need it at some point.
"office365" is such a failure it is now a freebie tossed in when you subscribe to an unlimited online storage account from onedrive.
dear microsoft -- we TOLD YOU that subscription based office would not work. the only people that have it are those that were tricked into signing up for it over office 2013.
How is this possible and still make $$$ off the service? I know that for the vast majority of their user base won't come close to using 1TB any time soon, so this is largely a symbolic move to generate interest in their products, however what about these scenarios: #1 I use it to store my company's encrypted backups.....forever, no more need to delete old ones to make room for new ones. If every sys admin did this...the would run into trouble pretty quick. Just make sure no single file goes above 10GB. #2 As a programmer what stops me from setting up my own cloud solution, where I code a different looking front end, however I have OneDrive in the back-end storing the files, going through their API? And I am sure there are tons more that others can think of. I get the feeling this might be a cleaver trick for 2 reasons: #1 Kill the small players in that space (Dropbox etc) #2 Get more people to upload tons of material, accustomed to using online storage, maybe even kill off the local HD concept (other than for OS boot purposes) then a few years later quietly impose limitations past what the average person uses. Say for example 3 years from now the average user consumes 3TB, give 3TB free, charge anything for above.
That is correct. There are things that I deem not important but nice to have with an unlimited plan. Car DVR recordings (I never even look at them honestly), some movie backups (I can recreate them if i had to), full system backups (encrypted of course and financial stuff not stored in them) older than 2 years, etc. If the storage is unlimited I was just going to always store everything I have had.
Google recently announced they were switching their Google for Education members to unlimited storage as well. This seems like Microsoft trying to one-up Google to me.
It was my understanding that OneDrive had an arbitrary limit of 20,000 files. I wonder if this limit has been removed as well. Many organizations couldn't come close to hitting their storage quotas due to this limitation.
http://community.office365.com/en-us/f/154/t/226245.aspx
So i wonder what the real limit is?