@Animosity022, you are right, I shouldn't have responded to the provocation -- and I have already deleted that response.
Please don't lock the thread as it's quite productive for its original sense, ie for people to discuss alternatives to Drive and "unlimited" storage and is IMO doing a great service for everyone by alliowing us to share data and experiences.
Thanks for the reply.
First off keep discussions in a respectful manner.
As to your concern I wasn't following previous posts. For a matter of fact I did. And all I saw was people ignoring FUP all along. This is fact.
The only fact you seem to "expose" is them notifying you about continuously not following their FUP hence they do not even seem to offer you to raise limits against some extra money but instead they want to get rid off you.
Just take a moment and relax. Everyone can have a bad day.
Everything is said I guess. Maybe you need to reread the FUP or check out the way how contracts work.
It's nothing against you.
And again. Just because rules weren't enforced before doesn't mean they never will (see Google 5 User limit for unlimited storage for example).
If box will ever allow me to upload again even I havent reached the 1TB/month limit…
How can we avoid to hit these API limits with some rclone flags?
I don't think the problem is their API call limit, the specific reason they gave to cut my access was bandwidth used (despite their own "Account information" page showing "Bandwidth used: 0" (and yes, that's a zero).
In your communication with Box, did they give you a specific reason for cutting your access, one explicitly mentioning the API call limit?
Have you tried using the Desktop app? I have co-worker who is using it instead of rclone and isn't getting the errors there. I haven't tried it myself, but could be they are just limiting rclone?
The problem is if files are larger than Box's file size limits - if there's a way to use rclone's chunker with the desktop app, maybe it'd be possible to upload again
No, I have checked only the page they linked in your response
We have noticed that you have continued to violate the Box Fair Use Policy, specifically downloads, section 3.
https://www.box.com/en-gb/legal/fairusepolicy
I have hit Box.com’s upload limitation 1TB/month per user and uploading has been disabled as well. Is there a way to limit bandwidth usage on a monthly basis via rclone flags or a way to rotate which user is being used?
I’ve reached out to their sales team to see what options are available.
As far as I can decide the current box integration into rclone is not that advanced like Gdrive nor Dropbox
But maybe in the future if there is a free developer who can extend / invent new rclone flags (for Box), it maybe the case that you could stop the sync/copy at a certain amount of bw usage (% or GB), or API calls (as they have a TOS for that as well).
If you only use rclone, and box only counts the uploads it could be a good feature for the future.
There should be also a flag which stops sync/copy after the first or x times the 429 errors comes, as currently rclone tries to upload over and over again, even Box is not ready anymore for accept more. Which generates also bandwidth and you get blocked.
Or you can use the bwlimit flag, and calculate the max speed for a 24/7 transfer until you reach 1TB in a month
lol, you sound like a Box employee..
They did nothing wrong? Ok let me show you just a few...
By the way, i found this interesting review site:
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/box.com
84% 1-star reviews out of 124... But hey, i bet that was all from "bad customers" huh?
Just wanted to clarify something here, at no point that I'm aware of did they advertise unlimited bandwidth. That is not listed on their plans page, but they do outline their bandwidth limitations on the FAQ on their plans page. It's not front and center, but certainly not hidden.
Don't get me wrong, I am particularly pleased with their implementation of FUP violations...however I think I'd rather an actual unlimited storage plan with this monthly bandwidth reset system than the bait and switch that Dropbox pulled.
It's good to see I'm not the only person noticing this. But I decided to not respond to that gentleman/woman anymore, whether he/she is a Box shill or just a tremendous assh^H^H^H^Hnot very illuminated person (or both) it just not worth it, and could/would eventually lead to this thread being locked out, probably to his/her glee. So what I recommend is, it's better we just ignore and leave him/her talking to him/herself.
The only thing I regret is Discourse not having the equivalent of a USENET killfile so I wouldn't even have to skip over his/her drivel, it would have been sent to the /dev/null device right from the start.
Granted. But there's the matter of what's written, and there's the matter of when it gets enforced; for me and a lot of people here (see previous posts), their 1TB/user/month and 100K API calls/month would be perfectly alright once we migrated our data. Some of us(me included) asked them directly about it during trial, but didn't get any clear answers.
Exactly, and even Dropbox didn't (at any time) block READ access to people's data; Box is being the worst of the worst in this regard. Still about Box, there would have been no problem if Box enforced these limits right from the start (so we all would have figured it during trial) or if they responded clearly when asked about it, but they did neither, and therefore allowed the false expectation that they would wait until we've migrated our data, and then decided to enforce it (in the worst possible way) when things got too hot for them.
Shame on them.
This looks pretty unlimited for me doesnt it?
Thank you for this. I just went there and posted one more 1-star review (too bad they don't allow zero nor negative stars).
Instead of responding to their (self-appointed or not) shill here in the thread, I recommend every one that have had a bad Box experience to just go to the above link and do the same.
To anyone still using Box and having issues with their horrible small-file performance, please note that our indomitable @ncw prepared a special version of rclone with a specific optimization to try and work around that, please see here: PSA: Box.com has *serious* performance issues in directories with thousands of files - #13 by durval
If you can, please install that version and help with the testing.
I also find it completely incompetent to simply impose such drastic limits without any communication. I have an enterprise account and the fair use policy does not list this type of account. Nevertheless, my upload was stopped.
Wow 5000 pb quota???
I‘d like to have a place there, how to contact you?
Best regards
I can understand that they set limits in place to prevent abuse. However, in this case, they should also provide effective monitoring tools. Nothing is clear with them. It's not clear what they mean when they use the term "bandwidth." My account and the accounts of my other users show "unlimited bandwidth" and 0 use. How are we supposed to know at a glance where we stand? Are we supposed to guess?
Furthermore, when we contact support to learn more about various issues (half-threatening emails, 429 errors, and other problems), we are told that "nothing can be done" or that "we don't know." So, who is supposed to know something or be able to do something in this company? Is it run by an AI or something?
