What is your rclone version (output from rclone version)
1.53.1
Which OS you are using and how many bits (eg Windows 7, 64 bit)
Debin 64-bit
Which cloud storage system are you using? (eg Google Drive)
Google Drive
The command you were trying to run (eg rclone copy /tmp remote:tmp)
I am trying to optimize the moving of files of different sizes (jpg's and videos) to Gdrive storage. I've settled on doing this in 2 passes, one to cover the the many smaller jpgs, where I will have multiple transfers at once, and one to cover the larger videos which I will do one at a time.
The documentation of --no-traverse doesn't call out a number, so it's unclear to me how to make the decision s to what a "small number of files" is, as that's a highly subjective appraisal. So I'm looking for guidance there to determine if I should be using it.
And while I'm at it, I've gathered if I'm reasonably certain (which I am) that the files being copied don't exist on the destination, I should probably use --no-check-dest as well? Would using --no-check-dest negate any need for --no-traverse?
Ok, that's good to know! It might be useful, in the future, to have a section in the documentation about remote optimization/best practices...something, for information like this.
The number of files varies, and I will be repeating it. I have it scripted out, and realized yesterday that one run seemed to be taking particularly long, and I had a bunch of jpg's that in the grouping.
You know, now that you mention that 2-files per second thing, I do vaguely recall that...that said, I've been (in my forgetful ignorance regarding that) generally running --transfers 3 for moving jpg files, and I haven't seen any rate limiting that I can recall...but I suspect it's probably averaging out to only about 2 files at any given time, so I'm probably not hitting the limit there as a result. I think I arrived at that experimentally, I think I do hit that at 4-5 simultaneous.
Even transfers 2 is going to be way more effective, the scale up for these small file operations just to 2 or 3 feels at least linear to me.
This is how I do it now, but typically I had seperated out the small and large file folders. One slipped through, and I realized the 1-at-a-time on the samll files was really dragging it down. So I decided to re-work it a little, and started wondering about --no-traverse in the process.