Hello guys!
I have a question regarding the benefits of using Rclone mount to a local dir vs using the regular command of remote:path
Currently I’m doing a backup to an external hdd and then I do a sync to remote:path but I’m thinking of skipping one step and send it directly to the Rclone mounted drive.
What would be the benefits of doing this?
Thanks I advance for your input!
I would carry on doing the rclone sync. It is better at doing retries in the case of network problems. The file system interface mount uses was designed for local disks which means there can be trouble with network disks when the network isn't 100% reliable.
A mount is more for when you need to present/use a file system.
It's better to use sync or copy if the goal is only to do perform those actions. A mount just adds another layer to the process and makes things more complex and adds another spot that errors can happen.
My goal is always to use the simplest solution to solve my use case by the fewest 'things' I can put into the mix as each thing adds an error point and makes it harder to support. My two cents anyway.
Great input, I’ll just leave it as is then...
Thanks again.. 
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.