I check back every 6 months or so to see if there has been any progress on this... still no. What a joke. Thanks for nothing Box team :-(

Back to Box Sync until this issue is addressed....

It is insane that this hasn't been resolved yet. I would never EVER use Box if my company didn't force the issue. Just stupid.

Is there a time line on when this will be implemented? Would be great of this was possible!

I'll add my voice to this request. When I reboot my system, it becomes virtually unusable for about 5-10 minutes whilst the C: drive is at 100% use as Box resyncs itself. Having the files on the D: drive would allow the resyncing, yet the C: drive would be free to launch and run other applications without the delay..

Is this still ¨under consideration¨ ?

It's ridiculous that this can't be corrected - it's a simple, rational, absolutely logical and necessary feature. Even if it was implemented as an "at your own risk" registry hack, that would suffice.

Unbelievable that this has not been addressed yet. Why on earth is the user not allowed to change the default cache location??? As many have described here, my IT dept default partitions C to be only programs and so it is quite small. This is extremely frustrating.

Was forced off Box Sync to this stupid, stupid Drive product. Tired of waiting for a "feature" that was part of the original product. Need the files offline but NOT on my boot disk. I cannot use the product "online" as I'm in Australia and the servers are god-knows where so it's slooooow. Won't be using Box anymore. YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.

This should be resolved now. We are using this tool for collaboration and all of us have smal SSD drives for our just our OS as C Drive. We have another HDD with bigger storage but can't allocate the files there!

Please help, urgently!

Just FYI your inability to do this is why we canceled our larger corporate account.

this needs to be a feature. I've got terabytes of data in box and need offline access but dont want to clog up my os hard drive. Even drobpox has the ability to select where you store data.

This is truly an embarrassment for any cloud storage solution company, not being able to usefully change the location of the downloaded assets. Our computers are partitioned into a small C:\ with just enough room for the OS and a few key programs, and then a much larger D:\. Not being able to use Box Drive due to locking the cache on C:\ is a huge oversight.

This is so stupid.

You are a storage software company, and don't let your customers actually choose where the storage happens on their devices. This is bloody inconceivable, to be honest. The fact is, I'm obliged to use this system for our organisation, or I'd be gone. So incredibly basic a functionality.

A: "Hey Box, please store my files on my D drive where I have a terrabyte of space."
Box: "I'm sorry, A, but I can't do that. I'll save it on your much smaller SSD instead."

So. So. Stupid.

For those on Windows, you can create a junction from your other drive to the Box cache folder (for instance using Hardlink Shell Extension
https://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/linkshellextension.html )
and then the physical cache will be placed on the other drive.

As of June 24th your response is "NOT PLANNED"????

This is an outrage!!! As you're sun setting BoxSync (which allowed data to be stored to a different drive) and forcing users to use BoxDrive you have no desire or plans to implement this vital feature??? It seems that all those working in IT Support or users working large data, all agree that this should be a no brainer? Any environment dealing with large files (i.e. media, CAD, etc...) are essentially being handicapped by not implementing this. Opening files on the go takes time to download and makes editing and saving cumbersome as opposed to having them cached locally. But if you cache locally you're now limited to only the size of your system (OS) drive, instead of a separate storage drive. again, what are you guys thinking???

If you fail to address this, users will eventually migrate to a product that provides this feature. It's rather unfortunate since we moved to box because it headlined enterprise level cloud sharing solution, and now you're just driving the same clientele away.

This would simplify our NAS / Box setup greatly. Being able use our NAS as the Box Drive cache and Drive folder location would allow us to make active projects 'available offline' and archived projects 'online only'.

I kinda need this yesterday so I'm having to find a workaround.

There is a simple use case: a lot of IT departments partition hard into two partitions. One partition holding the system + applications, the other (larger) partition holding the user data directories.

The system drive (C:) is normally kept as small as possible. This limits the amount of data that can be synced. If C: is full systems might even crash.

Making the cache movable to the second partition would instantly fix this problem.

I am a new business customer and am astounded as to why this is still an "idea" and not an implemented solution? I am moving (trying to) 2.5tb to box to transition to more offsite servers for our company. I cannot dump it into box drive to sync as the MacintoshHD is too small. I tried ftp but ftp.box.com is horrifically slow. Box makes it tough for new customers to get up and running.

This limitation should be spelled out in the pre-sales blurb. Right now I will not be adding any more user seats and if there is no actual eta for implementation I will evaluate other options.

What is a realistic eta for this to be implemented in Drive? "not on roadmap" is not a solution.

Why does box support not seem to be aware of this? My ticket received a "we understand your issue and will get back to you" then nothing. Its taken me hours of researching the box forums to find out it cannot be done.

My University is forcing all users to switch from Box Sync to Box Drive. My Mac mini server has a small SSD and a large HDD. It would be really great to place the cache on the HDD!