Copy from Team Drive for My drive

Hello. I was added to a Team Drive, and I would like to know if there is any way to copy the files from that Team Drive to My Drive? This team drive is in the same account as My Drive

I'm using the last rclone version, by the way

You should be able to do a server side copy with something like

rclone -P copy --drive-server-side-across-configs teamdrive:dir gdrive:dir

I tried this. But it seems that the screen freezes, several minutes passed and no progress, the folders were not even created.

What version are you running?
What command are you running?
Can you run the same command with -vv and share the output of that?

In addition to Animosity's questions - are you using fast-list?

Because it is normal when using --fast-list that ALL the listings will be done before the transfer can start (and there is no output to the screen while this happens).
If the folder structure is very complex with a buttload of files this could take some time - but --fast-list will still do the total listing an order of magnitude faster than relying on the default method.

@ncw Regardless of if this is the problem in this case - do you think it might be useful to just add a line of descriptive text at the start of the transfer operation when using --fast-list ? I feel that users can very easily be confused when "nothing happens" after they hit enter. Just something simple like "Listing remote - please wait..."

It would be nice to have something in the -P/--progress output wouldn't it - is that what you mean?

Sorry for the late, I tried again, that day I had reached the maximum of my quota and for that reason it did not work. I tried again and it worked. Thank you guys

If I recall correctly, with -P it shows the -P output but it does nothing until --fast-list is done (seemingly in a frozen state to those who don't know better, which of course can be confusing).

But if -P is not used I think it just shows nothing at all. One might imagine a user applying -v but not -P with --fast-list and because of a long listing time there is no output from rclone at all during this time even though they expected to see output from -v immediately.

Therefore it might be more optimal to have a message-line that activates for --fast-list that is not just baked into -P but activates separately (before -P initiates it's output). Does that make sense? :slight_smile:

Yes that is right.

What I could do is add a Listed: stat which counts up things being listed but stops being shown as soon as their are any checks or transfers.

Or I could add a fixed message "Listing in progress"

With -v they will get the stats blocks every 1 minuted (which are the same as the -P output) which would have the Listed: block of whatever.

An active counter for --fast-list would certainly be very useful feedback. If that's not a huge pain to add I vote for that 100% :smiley:

1 Like

But side-question relating to this... if rclone can tally the listings of --fast-list as they are coming in - then why exactly is it that the transfer always wait for the full listing to be complete before proceeding?

I can understand it would be needed for --track-renames, but for just --fast-list it should be enough that we just have listing data from at least one of the same locations to begin transferring right?
Is there a technical reason why this is not possible, or is this just something that hasn't been optimized as well as it could yet? (not saying to make this a priority right now if that is the case - just curious)

The internals of --fast-list means that the directory listings come in a random order. To compare the remote and local needs to compare the entire directory so we have to wait for all the listing before we could start.

We could could possibly start immediately if we were using --no-traverse though.

1 Like

I get that it comes in with an unpredictable order.
But it seems like waiting for 100% listing on both sides should not be required.
As soon as you have a listing of folder X on remote A + remote B, that should be sufficient to start any transfers relevant to X. Whether or not we yet have the listings for folder B,C,D shouldn't really be relevant. Or at least that is what my current understanding leads me to believe :slight_smile:

Of course, even if that would be ideal it might be a pain to keep track of... it's obviously easier to wait for full listings.

The trouble is that you don't know you have the listing for any particular folder until you've received all the items, as the items can come in any order.

Even those in the same folder?
Is this because of there being a max-size (1000) per listing that a folder could be exceeding? That would make sense when I think about it.