Advantage of new union remote?


#41

Yes, that would work perfectly.

I still think moves from location-0 to location-1 should be parked and considered in phase 2, as I think the existing rclone move is good enough.


#42

Yes I would be quite happy to manage that part manually as well if it is going to be too onerous to build initially.


#43

I see - thank you for explaining.

Looking at your updated schema I think moves look good.

I think my preference here would be not to delete the file in step 2 or step 3, but rely on the rclone move to replace the file properly. This means that if anything goes wrong you still have the old file.


#44

Yes that would work, agree it is safer. And slightly less latency at runtime too.


#45

:smile:

Could one of you please make a clean copy of the design so far into a new issue on github (link to this thread too) then we can have a think about implementation :smile:


#46

I will have a go at that.


#47

Brilliant! @ncw Thanks for adding this to the backlog as it would solve my biggest outstanding issue, which is ditching unionfs as the extra IO from lack of hard link support (and I also suspect just moving files from other local paths to location-0) is killing my server setup


#48

Github issue created. Sorry it took a few days, got busy.


#49

Thanks for doing that :smile: