Hello,
I'm not sure where to post this question, as it's not really asking for help and support, but more like a general question.
Would you say rclone copy /local/path/ remote: will provide the same performance as rclone mount remote: /mount/path && rclone copy /local/path/ /mount/path/?
I understand that there is the FUSE layer underneath mounting, but it has cache optimizations so I would like to see if it can catch up on performance.
It will be faster and simpler to copy directly to the remote if you don't require permanent retries. Copying to a mount with the vfs-cache-mode set to writes or above will first store the file locally and then try uploading to the remote indefinitely (in case of failures). This will require 2 sets of read/writes, 1st to the mount and then to the remote. In most cases, it's easier to just copy to the remote directly.
Makes complete sense! It was just that I already have the remote mounted, so it's easier for me to use path. Thanks.
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.