Synology & Resilio

[JoelM]

I have a new customer with a home based business. It is a husband and wife. Between them they have 4 computers. They are currently using Resilio, https://www.resilio.com/ which I have never used before, to sync their documents etc between the computers. They do not want to use Sharepoint, OneDrive, Google Drive etc where they do not own their own data. Resilio seems to work fine for them to always have the same files without issues.

They have a Synology that was setup a year ago that they are not using. However, the individual who set it up showed them that there was a Resilio App for the Synology. I am trying to understand the benefit of the Synology app. Resilio works using a peer-to-peer sync as is but then Synology indicates if you install their app the sync happens through the NAS. https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/packages/resiliosync

Does anyone have any experience with Resilio who might be able to make it clearer what the difference is between how they currently sync Resilio now vs somehow using the Synology? It doesn't seem clear to me.

 

[HCHTech]

This seems like an overly-complicated solution. Why can't you put the shared data on the NAS and make mapped drives on the computers. That gives them access to all of Synology infrastructure and capabilities and doesn't rely on a "sync" app. Centralized data storage > individual data storage. For example, how are they backing up their data now? So easy with a Synology, and no extra cost if you keep the data local.

Edit: if the computers are laptops and they travel with them and need that data, then that might be an argument for syncing, but honestly if that's the case then they need to get over their reticence with OneDrive or Dropbox or Google Drive or whatever cloud solution would be the best solution.

 

[JoelM]

They each have a desktop for when working from home and each have a laptop for when working when traveling. This is the purpose of the sync. They have been using Resilio for a while now and are insistent on "owning" their own data and not being willing to use OneDrive, Dropbox, Google Drive or anything else. I can't make them do what they don't want.
What they have is working for them I'm just trying to figure out the best options with what they have and what they are willing to do. It's not the way I would do it at all but it's not my company or data.

 

[britechguy]

for a while now and are insistent on "owning" their own data

Then part of your job is disabusing them of the notion that cloud storage deprives you of ownership of your data. It does not. And that's even if they wish to stay with local storage.

Microsoft does not own my data, I do, they store it for me. Google does not own my data (well, they might, since I'm only using free Google Drive, but I doubt it, I'd have to look at the EULA again).

Allowing clients to keep using the analogy that cloud services own, literally or figuratively, your data is akin to allowing them to think that the parking garage owns their car because the car happens to be parked there.

I have no problem with someone saying that they want "complete local control" of their data, as that is accurate. But the ownership trope is not.