I've been experimenting with rclone with Proton Drive for an offsite backup solution. I tried just the normal rclone sync ~/.obsidian/Personal\ Vault ProtonDrive:Backups/Personal\ Vault -v --progress --checkers 32 --transfers 8. With just under a thousand files and only a couple of updates, it took 2m10s. I understand this is pretty fast, but it's not great when you're looking at 100,000 files. I tried using rclone mount ProtonDrive:Backups/Personal\ Vault ~/.backupmounts/Personal\ Vault \ --vfs-cache-mode writes \ --vfs-cache-max-size 10G \ --vfs-cache-max-age 24h \ --vfs-read-chunk-size 32M \ --vfs-read-chunk-size-limit off \ --checkers 32 --transfers 16 --progress and rsync, but this took 22m! After the initial caching sync (which only took 1m12s), a follow-up sync only took 6.5s!!
So, why is Cache Backend deprecated when it seems to be the fastest method for incremental backups? Is there another comparable method that I'm just not aware of?
Interesting. And frustrating. I didn't know that using Rclone with Proton was a problem. No matter. I've figured out how to use it with Storj and client-side encryption. And it is much, much faster and Proton.
I am not an expert but why trust server side encryption when you don't have to! rclone makes it so easy and seamless that you can use any storage you want and have it encrypted. The only reason I really see to use Proton is if you have it anyway and really want to use that storage.
That's the primary reason I was trying to use it. I already pay for a monthly subscription that includes 100G storage. But man it is slooow. Now I'm backing up to a Storj S3 bucket that I'm paying for by hosting a Storj Node. So that's pretty cool too.