Hi,
What’s the major difference between “rclone mount” and ”rclone copy”? I suppose it is more reliable with “rclone mount”. Is it right?
There are totally two different things.
As name suggests rclone copy is used to copy objects from source to destination.
Mount is used to create virtual filesystem representing remote, accessible via single local directory (mount point)
Sorry but what is more reliable? Both commands do what they are designed to do...
rclone mount vs rclone sync/copy
File systems expect things to be 100% reliable, whereas cloud storage systems are a long way from 100% reliable. The rclone sync/copy commands cope with this with lots of retries. However rclone mount can't use retries in the same way without making local copies of the uploads. Look at the VFS File Caching for solutions to make mount more reliable.
At: rclone mount
some very badly designed ones maybe (FAT/exFAT for sure)
Modern filesystems have a lot of logic under the bonnet to deal with problems and even self heal corruptions - as it is not question if data will be corrupted but when. Have a look at design of ZFS or BTRFS.
It does retry the same way as copy/sync.
Mount is useful if you want to access data in a way familiar for most software - as part of local filesystem. Copy/sync is raw command to shift data around.
IMO if your objective is to transfer data, use copy/sync - it is easier to control and act accordingly based on operation status. With mount, details are hidden and require much more effort to monitor (rc interface) - for example to know whether upload has been completed.
it depends on the vfs file cache mode
rclone mount --vfs-cache-mode=off - does not use vfs file cache
"If an upload fails it can't be retried"
rclone mount --vfs-cache-mode=writes|full - does use vfs file cache
"If an upload fails it will be retried "
can check out my summary of two vfs caches
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.