So you’re using rclone’s encryption? i would like to know how it behaves with a lot of small and large data. i have backed up several petabytes in the meantime and would like to go away from encfs. i would also like to have it in one solution without having to access two/third programs. currently i know the encfs works relatively well but i’m sure aes-ni and co can’t do it for sure it seems to me clearly too slow
I think the number of files shouldn’t matter encryption-wise, both for encfs and rclone. All the listing, filesystem/cloud walking are independent things, the overhead added by encrypting the filenames is tiny. The actual encryption of the content would work just as well if you have 5 or 5 million files with these systems that encrypt one file to one file. It would be a different story if you had something like StableBit CloudDrive that makes chunks and keeps the folder structure in some files and tracks of which chunks belong to which file and many other things in “normal” files. But with encfs and rclone there’s no issue, as long as the filesystem itself can handle the files it is all fine.
Thanks for the clarification. it certainly sounds plausible
as an example i would have two directories, one A and one B, but the content would be identical to the filename. do the encrypted files in the two folders then have the same checksum or is it like the blowfish cbc encryption each time a recalculate the crc checksum?
which i noticed with encfs when i moved the file via firefox (only the encrypted ones) they are no longer displayed decrypted in the mount. as if they disappeared.
therefore i am afraid that i will suffer a data loss, therefore i don’t do a rclone update any more since quite some time. because I had problems with the new versions and didn’t see all the files.