I'm not having a problem as such, this is just a query as to why rclone falls back to size only when syncing between two different remotes, even when they are both google drive remotes.
--checksum is in use but the source and destination have no hashes in common; falling back to --size-only
Neither of the remotes are encrypted.
What is your rclone version (output from rclone version)
rclone v1.51.0
- os/arch: linux/amd64
- go version: go1.13.7
Which OS you are using and how many bits (eg Windows 7, 64 bit)
Debian 9 x64
Which cloud storage system are you using? (eg Google Drive)
Google Drive Only
The command you were trying to run (eg rclone copy /tmp remote:tmp)
Just the basic command nothing fancy.
A log from the command with the -vv flag (eg output from rclone -vv copy /tmp remote:tmp)
Unfortunately I don't have a log, but below does appear in the log, the wierd part is that the log does contain OK messages with MD5 hashes, but in some places in the log the below message is displayed.
--checksum is in use but the source and destination have no hashes in common; falling back to --size-only
No neither are crypt remotes, it seems very hit and miss like it says it's falling back to size only, but above and below the message MD5 hashes still appear in the log.
Ok no worries, doesn't matter then, the debug log is huge as I have thousands of files, and I can't replicate the issue in another smaller folder each in the same remotes.
Oh no that was a different case, atleast one of the destination remote would have been the same but in this instance the source is a different remote.
Also if I could replicate the issue with just a few files in a directory I would happily share the logs, but as the log file is huge and I'd prefer not to share the directory and file names that are stored in my drive, so I can't really and also don't really want to, and as I can't replicate the issue with a smaller set of files it means I have no log.
I did try this, but the files in my test have matching hashes in each of the remotes, yet I am using the same command in both cases, the old change is the source and destination folders, the remotes themselves are the same.