Crypt backend vs compress gzip 1 performance

What is the problem you are having with rclone?

I would like some input on the encryption used for the crypt backend so I can compare the overhead to gzip 1. I have an older CPU 2012 Intel with AES-NI, however my only desire is to obfuscate my data on cloud storage. Since I can't choose AES128 vs 256 in the crypt to minimize overhead, I'm curious if just using gzip 1, or even gzip -2 will obfuscate any MIME data as only an octet-stream, with fewer CPU cycles than encryption.

If the gzip 1/-2 based compress backend is lighter on CPU, I may still use the crypt backend for file/folder encryption and set do not encrypt to 0

Run the command 'rclone version' and share the full output of the command.

rclone v1.57.0-DEV

  • os/version: centos 8 (64 bit)
  • os/kernel: 4.18.0-365.el8.x86_64 (x86_64)
  • os/type: linux
  • os/arch: amd64
  • go/version: go1.16.12
  • go/linking: dynamic
  • go/tags: none

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

No, the encryption is much faster - my 4 year old laptop encrypts files at 160 MiB/s whereas even on gzip -1 I only get 32 MiB/s on random data.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.