# 1.64.0 and latest beta 1.65.0 both crash on rclone crypt/sync B2 on large files **URL:** \ **Category:** Suspected Bug\ **Created:** [September 24, 2023, 3:35pm UTC](https://forum.rclone.org/t/1-64-0-and-latest-beta-1-65-0-both-crash-on-rclone-crypt-sync-b2-on-large-files/41987 "2023-09-24T15:35:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 14
**Author:** ![MaxC](https://forum.rclone.org/user_avatar/forum.rclone.org/maxc/32/3243_2.png) [@MaxC](https://forum.rclone.org/u/MaxC)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 4:04pm UTC](https://forum.rclone.org/t/1-64-0-and-latest-beta-1-65-0-both-crash-on-rclone-crypt-sync-b2-on-large-files/41987/14 "2023-10-03T16:04:33Z")
> [@ncw](#): > > This would be fine for reading from disk I think, but its rather unfriendly reading from network multiple times so this might need to be stored to disk which is a pain! If I understand correctly, to avoid multiple network reads, rclone caches chunks in RAM. Would it be any extra pain to do the exact same caching, but to the filesystem? As we grab chunks from the network, we'd stream them directly into temp dir, and work on them there. Perhaps you're saying that unlike `io.ReadSeeker`, there's no common interface for writes? > [@ncw](#): > > Do you want to make an issue about this? Let me know if [this is](https://github.com/rclone/rclone/issues/7350) adequate. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.rclone.org/t/1-64-0-and-latest-beta-1-65-0-both-crash-on-rclone-crypt-sync-b2-on-large-files/41987)._