Question about encfs and rclone crypt

i would have liked to know what you prefer encfs or crypt from rclone

if so, what about large data volumes? for the purpose of availability and speed, in the form of access times and transfers?

Advantages and disadvantages would be great if someone could share them.

exchange experiences :slight_smile:

I’m less complex in my setup so I wouldn’t use encfs as it’s another piece of software to configure and use.

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 use rclone encrypt with media files. I currently have:

rclone about GD:
Used:    61.772T
Trashed: 4.665G
Other:   129.377M

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.

best working version

rclone v1.38-236-g29d34426β

  • os/arch: linux/amd64
  • go version: go1.9.2

1.38 is an ancient version.

If you are using rclone encrypt, you can run rclone cryptcheck on a file and validate it matches if you wanted that level of validation.

Mixing encfs and rclone just seems like a recipe for things being out of sync in my mind as it adds layer of unneeded complexity for no gain.

i’m currently running encfs, but i want to get away from it, i’d start all over again with a second dropbox

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.