New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Only a bit upgrade to the original rclone, no danger I think
It just makes rclone a bit easier to use, you do not have to type in stuff like remote paths and specify config every time.
For example 'brclone syncup dir' will synchronize the local directory dir to the server, 'brclone syncdown dir' will sync it from the server to local, 'brclone ls' will list the content on the server, 'brclone tree' will print a tree view of the filestructure on the server. Arguments 'get' and 'put' should be pretty self-explanatory.
the german box is good.
US box is slow on remote sshfs mount.
It just adds a few extra validations.
It's a simple wrapper. Solves nothing though.
It is good for the price and a decent amount of storage for the price. and i hope @Francisco would offer something like this at @NameCrane too at this price (Just ftp would be good enough or even better a sftp / s3)... I wish more providers do these kind of products..
Thanks for all the replies. Still trying to figure it out.
Why do people send files this way rather than by using rsync, which appears to be simpler (ie, one simple command)?
If you use rsync you would still have to type in username, path etc, so it's really not much different from rclone.
You could modify my script to use rsync instead if that is what you prefer, it should not take more then a few minutes.
enough for cold data and small backups.
I use it as small file storage with selfhosted s3.
thanks.
because rclone is praised everywhere, but the handling is tricky