Rclone VFS mount vs Rclone move/copy-to

[St0rm]

Hi,

I was wondering if someone could share their opinion of only using rclone mount VFS for upload to gdrive vs using the specific function rclone moveto/copyto

Scenario:
a. After post-processing a file with [insert media manager] a copy/hardlink is saved directly to the /path/to/mount rclone vfs will upload it by itself

b. After post-processing a file with [insert media manager] a copy/hardlink is saved to a seperate folder. rclone moveto/copyto will then handle the upload to gdrive

So if you could, pros and cons for each usage.

Thank you

[Animosity022]

You can't hardlink on a rclone mount so it is a copy.

Either option is fine imo as they both in term do the same thing.

A option requires less scripting to make it work while the B requires a bit more scripting.

I personally don't do either as I like to use hard linking and use mergerfs instead with a move script overnight.

I'd do whatever is the simplest setup for you and you are most comfortable with that meets your use case.

[St0rm]

Thank you for the quick reply Animosity.

In terms of what goes on in the background, can you perhaps tell me what parameters rclone mount vfs uses for transfers to drive? And what about RAM and CPU usage
--transfers
--bwlimit
--checkers
--tpslimit
other relevant flag

[Animosity022]

transfers/checkers do nothing on a mount.
tpslimit would impact all your mount operations, no need to use it

Files on a mount are uploading one at a time. There are more settings, but those are backend dependent like chunk sizes and such.

CPU/RAM would be the same moving a single file with rclone as it has very minimal impact.