Copying gets stuck with FTP mount on Windows

What is the problem you are having with rclone?

Downloads freeze after a few seconds. If it let the downloads run to will take hours to copy a file that is a few gigabytes. I have tried with the cache options set to full and off. Doesn't really seem to make any difference.

I will only be using this to copy movies from a seedbox so performance with lots of small files is not a concern.

What is your rclone version (output from rclone version)

rclone v1.55.1
- os/type: windows
- os/arch: amd64
- go/version: go1.16.3
- go/linking: dynamic
- go/tags: cmount

Which OS you are using and how many bits (eg Windows 7, 64 bit)

Windows Server 2019

Which cloud storage system are you using? (eg Google Drive)


The command you were trying to run (eg rclone copy /tmp remote:tmp)

rclone mount ftp-mount: e:

The rclone config contents with secrets removed.

type = ftp
host = <ftp-servr>
user = <username>
pass = <password>
tls = false
explicit_tls = true

A log from the command with the -vv flag

Can you see if the latest beta has the same problem?

Can you see if you can replicate with a single file with rclone copy and if so post a log from rclone copy -vv --dump bodies

hello and welcome to the forum,

ERROR : ftp://server-name-removed:21: Timeout when waiting for connection Close
might be easier to debug by using rclone copy,

in all the seedboxes i currently use and have used, they offer sftp, which is a much better protocol and has better support with rclone.

Yes, It does the same thing with the latest beta.

rclone v1.56.0-beta.5523.0574ebf44
- os/version: Microsoft Windows Server 2019 Datacenter 1809 (64 bit)
- os/kernel: 10.0.17763.737 (x86_64)
- os/type: windows
- os/arch: amd64
- go/version: go1.16.4
- go/linking: dynamic
- go/tags: cmount

Using rclone copy --vv --dumpbodies

no errors in that log seems to support rclone, so might try rclone serve sftp

Yea but it's still a bit slow lol. Looks like the disk usage comes in spikes. Downloads for a second the stops and waits.

I tested with sftp and it seems to be much better. My only problem is that it runs my server up to like 60% cpu usage just to copy a file lol. This is the same using mount and copy.

you windows server is running on local hardware, virtual or what?

It's a VM running on one of my servers at home. It has 4 CPUs and 6GB of RAM. Should be more then enough for rclone.

as a test, run rclone on the physical server, not the vm.

i assume that the physical server is windows.
the server itself might have 4 cpu but how many are dedicated to the vm?

my home server runs the free windows 2019 hyper-v edition.

That's what I mean. There are 4 dedicated to the VM.

I'm running esxi on all of my servers. It would probably be more of a pain than it's worth to run rclone directly.

VM Hardware Configuration
Memory 6 GB
Physical Server
Logical processors 24
Processor type Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 0 @ 2.50GHz
Sockets 2
Cores per socket 6
Hyperthreading Yes, enabled

test with filezilla or such software and compare to rclone.

CPU usage was about half that with WinSCP. The transfer speed was also about half what I was getting with rclone too. So I guess we can can WinSCP is about the same.

Maybe there's not much that can be done about it...

i would run a few tests on a physical computer inside the same lan.

The same thing happens on my laptop. Maybe I should consider some non-rclone solutions to download via HTTP or something (rclone has the same problem with http as it does with ftp)

on my laptop, w10, rclone copy from seedbox to local over sftp.
cpu usage averaged approx 18%
ram - 35MB

Yea I got the same but the download speed was about half with other programs. I would assume that half the speed = half the CPU usage.

It seems that the nature of stfp causes high CPU usage (a bunch of small packets instead of a few big ones) in my 2 minutes of Google searches. I'll just use sftp for now since it works and hopefully I come across a better solution.

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.