So I have a few remote drives I want to merge into a "set" of mount points. Unfortunately the 3 drives I am trying to merge don't have exactly the same structure so I can't just union the roots and call it a day. Nor can I change the existing structures. So I am left with the following conundrum.... is it better have a single rclone mount for each drive, and then use UnionFS or MergerFS to merge them, or it is better to create 4 RClone Union Mounts. Here is an example of what I am talking about.
DrivesA PDFs DOCs Photos Videos DriveB MyData PDFs DOCs DriveC Media MyPhotos MyVideos
My target layout is
/mnt/merged/PDFs /mnt/merged/DOCs /mnt/merged/Videos /mnt/merged/Photos
Option one would be to have all three drives defined in the rclone.conf with unions defined:
PDFs - Union of DriveA/PDFs DriveB/MyData/PDFs DOCs - Union of DriveA/DOCs DriveB/MyData/PDFs Videos - Union of DriveA/VideosDriveB/Media/MyVideos Photos - Union of DriveA/Photos DriveB/Media/MyPhotos
This is the way I am currently doing it and I have 4 systemd services that start each union and then vfs refresh to load up the cache. The issue I see with this is that each union forms its own connection to the drive and its own cache.
The alternative would be to have rclone mounts:
/mnt/DriveA /mnt/DriveB /mnt/DriveC
And then to use UnionFS/MergerFS to make the /mnt/merged/ (again I would need four different mounts, unless I am overlooking a cleaner way to do it). The upside I see with this is that I have only a single rclone connection to each drive with a single cache for each one, the downside being I now have 3 rclone mounts and 4 mergerfs/unionfs mounts.