A few months ago, our organization moved to a hybrid setup using Tiger Bridge to synchronize data between local storage and AWS. Our data analytics team regularly works with large Excel files, often around 60 MB, to build presentations and reports. We have repeatedly recommended moving this kind of collaborative work to SQL Server, SharePoint, or another appropriate platform, but that change has not been approved.
Since the migration, Tiger Bridge has increasingly been involved in file corruption during synchronization. When we raised the issue, the central data management lead said that Tiger Bridge is not meant to be used this way and that we are using it incorrectly. However, they did not explain what the incorrect behavior is or what configuration or workflow should be used instead, beyond suggesting SQL Server or SharePoint.
Is there a known usage pattern that could cause Tiger Bridge to corrupt files, particularly when large Excel files are being edited or synchronized? Or should we treat this primarily as a product, configuration, or operational problem and escalate it to the vendor? Our department cannot contact the vendor directly because central IT controls the system and licensing, and local staff only have limited access to recover file snapshots.
3 Answers
There is not enough information to determine whether this is an unsupported workflow or a synchronization problem. Large files that are actively edited, opened by multiple people, or changed while Tiger Bridge is moving them can be difficult for any file-sync system. The exact access pattern, locking behavior, synchronization settings, and corruption symptoms need to be documented before assigning blame. The vendor should be asked to confirm whether this workflow is supported and to review logs from an affected file.
You should escalate this through the team that administers Tiger Bridge and have them open a support case. Ask for a clear answer in writing about supported file sizes, simultaneous editing, file locking, and what happens when a file is modified during synchronization. If the product is only intended to tier or replicate files rather than provide collaborative editing, then the analytics team needs a separate document or database platform. Either way, simply saying the files are being used incorrectly is not an adequate diagnosis.
Large shared presentations and spreadsheets are risky even on ordinary file shares, especially when several users edit them at once. A synchronization layer can make that worse if it sees incomplete writes or conflicting versions. The recurring corruption is a strong reason to stop treating the synced location as a collaboration system, preserve backups, and move the workflow to SharePoint, SQL Server, or another tool designed for concurrent editing. That does not prove Tiger Bridge is functioning correctly, but it does show that the current design is fragile.
That is difficult in our environment because central IT controls the installation and licensing. Local IT has no administrative access and can only restore snapshots, so any vendor investigation has to go through the central team lead.