We do not support 'rclone serve' or 'rclone mount' for security reasons.
I thought surly this meant you couldn't call rclone mount on their remote shell but according to thier support, they don't allow you to rclone mount their SFTP remote. Support noted that SSHFS was acceptable.
This leaves me to wonder a few things:
How can they tell on the server side if you are syncing or mounting. I guess they could guess based on some behavior but I can't imagine it being accurate
Is anyone aware of what "security" (the use of quotes intentional) issues they may be referring to? And how could SSHFS be okay but rclone not?
Does anyone have experience with them? I am not looking to switch but I am always curious.
rsync.net does not allow login over ssh, no access to command line, no way to install/run rclone.
i also use hetzner storagebox, which does allow login but very locked down
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Welcome to your Storage Box. |
| |
| Please note that this is only a restricted shell environment and |
| therefore some shell features like pipes and redirects are not |
| supported. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
but they do offer limited access to rclone serve
Available as server side backend: |
| borg |
| rsync |
| scp |
| sftp |
| rclone serve restic --stdio
This is what I expected and was confused when they indicated that they didn't allow it. I didn't understand how they could block it even if they wanted to!
Glad to hear I am not crazy. Or at least not for this.
I may not have been clear. I do not currently use rsync.net and don't plan to.
While the rclone pricing is competative ($8/Tb/month), it isn't compelling over B2 ($6/Tb/Month + minor API).
This question was really just about curiosity (or, really, incredulity) of them not allowing mounting the remote and whether they actually could, or would do so