Pau Lo
asked on
file server naming conventions
We have been doing some analysis of unused data on a file servers, and through doing some analysis of inventories of all files & directories on our file server drives has thrown open a number of interesting issues/challenges. Basically for confidentiality purposes each team within the organisation has a restricted directory limited to only their team members, e.g. \\fileserver\department\te
\\fileserver\department\te
\\fileserver\department\te
What we have noticed though within these individual areas are really poor structures and non-meaningful subdirectory names, e.g. individuals forenames, initials etc etc. We are trying to put a case forward or at least some all user type advice what kind of problems this type of practice cause to the organisation as a whole. Finding data could be one potentially that we could use. Can you let me know your thoughts on any risks/issues such practice poses to an organisation (if any) - I appreciate where users have the ability to create sub folders then there is almost nothing you can do to prevent them naming directories and files anything they like but even so we can at least advise on good practice.
\\fileserver\department\te
\\fileserver\department\te
What we have noticed though within these individual areas are really poor structures and non-meaningful subdirectory names, e.g. individuals forenames, initials etc etc. We are trying to put a case forward or at least some all user type advice what kind of problems this type of practice cause to the organisation as a whole. Finding data could be one potentially that we could use. Can you let me know your thoughts on any risks/issues such practice poses to an organisation (if any) - I appreciate where users have the ability to create sub folders then there is almost nothing you can do to prevent them naming directories and files anything they like but even so we can at least advise on good practice.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
it is possible to prevent users from creating new folders at the top level they have access to, but they usually just create teir poor file structures in a subfolder instead :-(
most effective option i've experienced was a weekly sweep by IT. any folders not meeting the pre-agreed naming convention were moved to a holding area and only released on request from their manager.
There's only so many times they'll follow this painful process before giving in and using the agreed naming conventions.
To deal with your specific query however, the downsides to poor folder structure depends on the business.
You may be able to cite backup, auditing or GDPR requirements that depend on a well organised folder structure.
Also, shared working and/or covering for holidays are a good reason to make sure things are easy to find.
most effective option i've experienced was a weekly sweep by IT. any folders not meeting the pre-agreed naming convention were moved to a holding area and only released on request from their manager.
There's only so many times they'll follow this painful process before giving in and using the agreed naming conventions.
To deal with your specific query however, the downsides to poor folder structure depends on the business.
You may be able to cite backup, auditing or GDPR requirements that depend on a well organised folder structure.
Also, shared working and/or covering for holidays are a good reason to make sure things are easy to find.
ASKER
Yeah e-Discovery/FOI/DPA/GDPR were some I had in mind.
Interested in this point though >
Could you expand on how a poor naming convention impacts backup & restore?
Interested in this point though >
You may be able to cite backup
Could you expand on how a poor naming convention impacts backup & restore?
Another case for controlling naming conventions: path length. We've run into this with some of our clients. Many users, especially if they are sharing documents with others, like to make the file and folder names very descriptive. So you end up with a path like this:
\\servername\sharename\exp
These can get so long that the users will run afoul of the 255 character limit - NO LIE! So someone will create a new document and then try to save it and they can't save it where they want to because of the path length. Or they get a document by email and run into the same issue.
\\servername\sharename\exp
These can get so long that the users will run afoul of the 255 character limit - NO LIE! So someone will create a new document and then try to save it and they can't save it where they want to because of the path length. Or they get a document by email and run into the same issue.
ASKER
Yeah I've read about the folder length issue before, doesn't surprise me. Interested in this though:
Or they get a document by email and run into the same issue.How would an email attachment cause the same issue?
One thing that I have seen, is where a user receives a document by email with a long filename, tries to save it into a folder with a long total path, and it fails due to being too long overall.
Could you expand on how a poor naming convention impacts backup & restore?its a bit of a stretch but can be difficult to locate/restore files or folders if you cant find them. Also, you may have policies in place which only allow you to backup specific files/folders due to retention periods around GDPR etc. If they're spread all over the place it's impossible for the backup software, script or even a person to correctly identify and delete old files or ones that shouldn't have been backed up.
@pma111 - Yes, as Steve mentioned, what happens is they get an email attachment with a fairly long name, and then they try to save it to a folder that's buried deep in a very long path. Then we get a panicked call asking why they can't save that file.
Each department night also have good reasons for the structure they use.
Having said that, for example, perhaps if the business serves clients, then each folder should be the full legal entity name of the client (including a policy on use of, say, Ltd vs Limited), and individuals being Lastname, Firstname with no honorific.
To some extent, just having any policy is fine, and better than no policy.
Alan.