Dropbox Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Dropbox Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Indragie Karunaratne (@indragie) reported 0 seconds ago

  I used the first Dropbox beta back in 2006 and was sold right away - I’m still a paying customer of the product today, 20 years later. But there hasn’t been much innovation in this space since then and we’re in the midst of a broad shift in how people interact with computers. I’m excited to back this great team and see what a modern take on this problem looks like!

• 
  Alvin (@Alvin1492840) reported 1 minute ago

  Kill the startup apps that have been draining your battery since day one. She opened System Settings → General → Login Items & Extensions. 14 apps were set to launch automatically every time he turned on his Mac. Spotify. Zoom. Adobe Creative Cloud. Google Drive. Microsoft Teams. OneDrive. Dropbox. A VPN he used once. A screenshot tool he forgot about. A calendar widget. And 4 more he didn't recognize. Every one of them was running in the background 24/7 consuming RAM, CPU cycles, and battery life whether he was using them or not. She said: "You turn on your Mac and within 30 seconds, 14 apps are fighting for resources before you've even opened your first document. Your fan spins up because your CPU is processing a traffic jam of apps you're not using. Your battery dies by 2pm because half your power is going to background processes you don't see." She removed 11 of the 14. Kept only the ones he actually needed at startup. The Mac booted in half the time. The fan stayed quiet. The battery lasted 3 extra hours. She said: "Check this list right now. If you see apps you don't use daily, remove them. They've been silently eating your Mac alive since the day you installed them."

• 
  numaan (@numaan27) reported 4 minutes ago

  they solved this problem in panda by splitting the key space into “ranges.” each range is roughly 100 GB, so when a range grows too large, it can be split and redistributed. (btw panda is an abstraction layer over sharded mysql that dropbox built)

• 
  Luke Elin (@LukeElin) reported 4 minutes ago

  👤Shadow Adoption The pattern: Staff route around the sanctioned tool, and the organisation finds out afterwards. I watched this with unauthorised modems. Then with USB drives. Then with Dropbox. Then with entire SaaS platforms procured on a personal credit card and expensed as “software.” Now it is AI the same movie, new cast, better production values. The reason is always identical and always reasonable: the sanctioned tool is slower than the job requires. Shadow adoption is not an indiscipline problem. 👊 It is a feedback signal about the official tooling, arriving through the wrong channel. The tell: Compare the usage figures for your officially sanctioned tool against what your helpdesk volume implies people are actually doing. The gap is your shadow estate. FR FR

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 5 minutes ago

  Replication has become much easier in the era of generative AI. I'm not the first person to say that. However, I've seen fewer people acknowledge a specific aspect of this lowered cost for replicating scientific work: Generative AI will very soon allow us to assess the robustness of individual scholars' full bodies of work. Soon, we will be to compute measures of which scholars do robust science, and which do not. What's wild is that we may be able to almost do that already. Let me show you what I mean. In June, I gave Claude a pretty basic prompt. It read: "I have a big task for you. I want you to start a folder. Call it Acemoglu Replications. Then, go find as many replication archives for Daron Acemoglu as you can. Keep a spreadsheet of the ones you can find and those you can't. Then, start a replication/reproduction effort on those articles. People have in the past criticized the research designs and general robustness of his individual papers. I want to know how strong his body of work is as a whole. Don't come in with any prior beliefs; be dispassionate." I let Claude run overnight while I slept. When I came back in the morning, 29 of Acemoglu's replication archives were fully loaded in my Dropbox. All the code reproducing the paper's results had run. And there was a first draft of a paper assessing the robustness of Acemoglu's full body of empirical work. I'll admit, the first draft of the paper wasn't great. But with 15 short follow up messages--which took me about an hour to write--I was able to prompt engineer a paper-length examination of Acemoglu's work. I've attached the screen shot of the abstract below. I think this reassessment of Acemoglu's work is certainly not done. I'm posting the abstract as a proof of concept, rather than a definitive answer. I'm not posting the full paper yet because I think it still needs more work. Ultimately, I paused this project for three reasons. 1.) Limited time/topical expertise: Most of Acemoglu's work is outside of my area of topical expertise. So, I have limited time to work on it. What this type of a project really needs is someone who has the time and the know-how to dig into each of the replication's individually to make sure they are doing the right things. I think the ideal approach combines the breadth that LLMs afford and the depth of attention/expertise that humans can give. 2.) Questions about the value of the "assess one scholar at a time" enterprise: I totally get that having a database of scholar-level robustness metrics would be very valuable in theory. But what I don't know is whether this approach is truly valuable. Moreover, doing so would come with distinct challenges. a.) Many journals have very restrictive space constraints. A body of work approach would, of necessity, be very long. b.) Collecting replication archives is harder for some types of scholars (those who post them all on their websites) than others (those who don't). c.) We'd have to think hard about questions like: what scholar-specific robustness metrics would be best? And: how would we deal with the fact that prolific authors' robustness metrics would be estimated much more precisely than less prolific scholars? Additionally, I'm just not sure that "taking on" one scholar at a time has enough scientific merit to pursue. If I measured how robust an individual scholars' work is, I'd ideally want to know where that metric stands vis-a-vis the rest of scholars in that field/area. To do that, we'd ideally want the population of these scholars or, at minimum, a random sample. Concretely, if Acemoglu has, say, 78% of published headline results reproducible under some standardized protocol, is that excellent, mediocre, or terrible? To answer that, you need a reference distribution. That makes a random or otherwise well-defined sample of scholars much more attractive than selecting prominent individuals one by one. (I'll acknowledge that I may just be wrong on #2. Arguing against myself, I do agree that human-driven reproduction/replication work rarely assesses full/representative slices of a field. Instead of assessing one scholar at a time, we assess one paper at a time. Field-wide detective work is becoming more common, but my sense is that it's still the exception rather than the rule.) 3.) Cost/benefit considerations and replication norms: we have very weakly formed norms around reproduction/replication generally speaking. We have basically no developed norms around replicating individual authors one at a time. What this means is that the people who would lead a scholar-by-scholar replication effort will, likely, bear a heavy cost and, potentially, reap limited benefits. On the costs side, focusing on scholars' total bodies of work risks making the replicators look petty, vindictive, and antisocial. Enough of the scientific field is hostile towards replications of individual papers. Imagine what will happen if/when a scholar submits a scholar-specific "take down" of a full body of work. My sense is that it's common enough for scholars having their work replicated to be asked to be a reviewer for those manuscripts. I've seen very hostile responses when one paper is at issue. Imagine what type of reviewer Acemoglu would be for a paper that took on his entire body of empirical work! Even if Acemoglu weren't a reviewer, prolific authors tend to have wide coauthor/friend networks. The rally-around-my-friend dynamic we often see would certainly work against this type of paper being published. Even a completely neutral analysis acquires an accusatory character simply because the sampling unit is a named person. And that creates an unfortunate problem of its own: readers may interpret the choice of scholar as evidence that the investigators expected to find something. On the benefits side, replicating individual scholars' total body of work may offer limited payoffs. What journals would accept this type of scholar-specific replication? I'm not sure the top ones would. Conclusion: Generative AI has enormous potential in assessing and, ultimately, enhancing the robustness of scientific research. Instead of asking questions like, “does this famous individual paper replicate?”, we can begin asking questions like: -“What proportion of published empirical findings in [field X] survive a common robustness protocol?” -“How much of the variation in replicability is attributable to papers, authors, journals, methods, or subfields?” -“Are scholars persistently more or less robust across their work?” -“Can we predict which findings will prove fragile?” I may just be wrong on what I think about a one-at-a-time full body examination of scientific research. If I am, please let me know! I am also happy to chat one-on-one with anyone who is curious to learn more about the early-stage Acemoglu-specific replication project.

• 
  Ricky Shah (@RickyShahatty) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Claudio_PNW @tax_birdie @AMandoSch Miller wanted the Dropbox released publicly. It is entirely up to the attorney to screen it. A bad client should make an attorney double down their efforts.

• 
  joshpuckett (@joshpuckett) reported 9 minutes ago

  @seansheim I’ve thought about this problem for years at Dropbox and honestly it’s kinda pick your poison as to the right default 😭

• 
  Loster (@Loster) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Z3R0Gravitas Thinking that if I do trials with people I'd give them exactly that. Something similar to a Dropbox folder for any health docs they want sync'd to the agent's server. I think that would take up how much it could help a notch (need to think a lot about confidentiality).

• 
  Ryan Babbs (@buckybabbs) reported 9 minutes ago

  Hello @Dropbox, Just this week I have decided to switch cloud service from Google Drive to you and less than 1 week I'm having an issue. I run a wedding film business and am trying to move the same 200GB file to two separate editors for two separate kind of films and one of them is encountering a "link temporarily disabled" message. I tried to research online and made a new folder and copied over the original folders contents and cannot share that either as it says I've exceeded bandwidth limits. This is maddening as I thought I'd picked the good plan (3TB) and was all set. Please advise asap as I need these files in my editors hands stat.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 12 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport erm different wifi nope or is this a suggestion should it be possible ? if so then no my internet signal can be hit or miss at times but never had this issue before... Also shared a file earlier for someone near me to edit using ipad app but photos failed to appear on ipad ?

• 
  Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) reported 14 minutes ago

  @EggerDC The Dropbox was taken down but I’m sure someone downloaded the whole thing.

• 
  Phillip Shepard (@Phillip_shepard) reported 19 minutes ago

  @RobertJBye One thing I do on a daily basis - I have a skill that is called the “video analyzer skill” and I record a screen record with my iPhone and microphone one - I talk about all the issues I need fixed while showing it in video - send it via Claude mobile app - it runs the skill - transcribes and makes its self a html doc with the video frames that the issues exist in - then fixes the issues - builds a test flight and I update it - very useful… if the video is too big I send it via Dropbox which syncs to my Mac

• 
  kingofDEpin (@kingofdepin) reported 19 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport @LIBSCRUSHER we can't login and link creation etc is not working. please fix

• 
  Porro (@MagickPorro) reported 20 minutes ago

  @unknownhomer @hasen_95dx You see how we have gone from comparing omarchy to dropbox to saying it is just a cool rice? I have no problem with people chosing omarchy because it looks cool, i just don't want people to treat it as if it is an actually innovating software in any meaningful way

• 
  True Blue Democrat & Patriot🇺🇦🇵🇸💔 (@TrueBluPatriot) reported 22 minutes ago

  And Took a picture of his little girl's ********. Then a staffer posted it on DropBox in error. That is the worst part.