Backblaze B2: error reading destination directory: File name in UTF8 must be no more than 1024 bytes (400 bad_request)

Boy, am I ever glad I came here. I'm going to give that a try. I did delete the two root locations of where the symlink mess on b2, however, it's taking literally 5++ hours and still not done. Once it is cleaned up I'll go ahead and give this a shot (as long as the mess is still on B2, it still ends up parsing (but not changing)) it even if I choose to exclude it in rclone, and erroring out).

Yea, I'd give it a shot.
It will involve making a local remote, which is an extra step but... at least you can just make a remote for the entire drive, so it's easy enough to set up in 2 minutes.

I was under the impression that rclone by default ignored symlinks though. Perhaps that only applies as the default to the "local" remote. Linking isn't something I have had need to mess with a lot yet so I haven't really tried. You know it is a symlink and not a hardlink I assume? The fact that you used the correct technical distinction right off the bat leads me to believe you know the difference.

I am not entirely sure of the default at this point, I feel like i'm down in the weeds hah.

I do understand the difference between a symlink and a hard link, though I am not sure if b2 / rclone handles them differently.

The great news is that with the most excellent help here, sync is now working again. All of that peskiness was located in only two locations but it was enough to munge everything up. Also, this whole thing has caused me to re-think what i'm backing up (either to b2 or any of my other backups). Currently I back up anything I possibly can, that includes everything on entire OS installs, server installs, you name it. In theory that maybe sounds good but it's really quite silly. Moving from a default backup to default not backup would save a lot of space, make operations much faster, and just be easier to manage.

So I'm going to let this finish for piece of mind and then switch my approach.

Thanks everyone here for your excellent help and timely replies. I've learned a lot, and now I'm suggesting that folks use rclone more than I already was!

Using rclone to backup anything related to the system and installed programs generally isn't such a great idea.
Remember that an OS is more than just a bunch of files (especially on Windows even more so than Linux with the registry and all). Trying to restore a system just based on a bunch of files on a cloud would be a nightmare I imagine.

I think that I would recommend using rclone primarily for "storage" files.

For backing up an active system, you really ought to use some sort of backup-software that can image the system.
then rclone can of course backup that image for you if you just put it in an area that it will look at. That way you will be insured against a complete drive failure, randsomware or something like that.

Not only is this more efficient in terms of it being much faster to transfer a large file than a gazillion small ones (on most backends) but it will also make a recovery process far far easier as the image can just be loaded to restore the basics of the system.

1 Like

Nod, I agree. I already use clonezilla for such things, it's wonderful. I'm currently cleaning up what's on B2 and planning out what i'm going to be putting up there from now on.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.