Note there is no intrinsic reason running multiple streams should be faster than one [EDIT: "at this scale"]. It almost always indicates some bottleneck in the application or TCP tuning. (Though, very fast links can overwhelm slow hardware, and ISPs might do some traffic shaping too, but this doesn't apply to local links).
SSH was never really meant to be a high performance data transfer tool, and it shows. For example, it has a hardcoded maximum receive buffer of 2MiB (separate from the TCP one), which drastically limits transfer speed over high BDP links (even a fast local link, like the 10gbps one the author has). The encryption can also be a bottleneck. hpn-ssh [1] aims to solve this issue but I'm not so sure about running an ssh fork on important systems.
> Note there is no intrinsic reason running multiple streams should be faster than one.
The issue is the serialization of operations. There is overhead for each operation which translates into dead time between transfers.
However there are issues that can cause singular streams to underperform multiple streams in the real world once you reach a certain scale or face problems like packet loss.
In general TCP just isn't great for high performance. In the film industry we used to use a commercial product Aspera (now owned by IBM) which emulated ftp or scp but used UDP with forward error correction (instead of TCP retransmission). You could configure it to use a specific amount of bandwidth and it would just push everything else off the network to achieve it.
If you strip out the swarm logic (ie. downloading from multiple peers), you're just left with a protocol that transfers big files via chunks, so there's no reason that'd be faster than any other sort of download manager that supports multi-thread downloads.
Uhh.. I work with this stuff daily and there are a LOT of intrinsic reasons a single stream would be slower than running multiple: MPLS ECMP hashing you over a single path, a single loss event with a high BDP causing congestion control to kick in for a single flow, CPU IRQ affinity, probably many more I’m not thinking like the inner workings of NIC offloading queues.
Source: Been in big tech for roughly ten years now trying to get servers to move packets faster
Ha, it sounds like the best way to learn something is to make a confident and incorrect claim :)
> MPLS ECMP hashing you over a single path
This is kinda like the traffic shaping I was talking about though, but fair enough. It's not an inherent limitation of a single stream, just a consequence of how your network is designed.
> a single loss event with a high BDP
I thought BBR mitigates this. Even if it doesn't, I'd still count that as a TCP stack issue.
At a large enough scale I'd say you are correct that multiple streams is inherently easier to optimize throughput for. But probably not a single 1-10gb link though.
If the application handles them serially, then yeah. But one can imagine the application opening files in threads, buffering them, and then finally sending it at full speed, so in that sense it is an application issue. If you truly have millions of small files, you're more likely to be bottlenecked by disk IO performance rather than application or network, though. My primary use case for ssh streams is zfs send, which is mostly bottlenecked by ssh itself.
Single file overheads (opening millions of tiny files whose metadata is not in the OS cache and reading them) appears to be an intrinsic reason (intrinsic to the OS, at least).
Rclone is a fantastic tool, but my favorite part of it is actually the underyling FS library. I've started baking Rclone FS into internal Go tooling and now everything transparently supports reading/writing to either local or remote storage. Really great for being able to test data analysis code locally and then running as batch jobs elsewhere.
RClone has been so useful over the years I built a fully managed service on top of it specifically for moving data between cloud storage providers: https://dataraven.io/
My goal is to smooth out some of the operational rough edges I've seen companies deal with when using the tool:
- Team workspaces with role-based access control
- Event notifications & webhooks – Alerts on transfer failure or resource changes via Slack, Teams, Discord, etc.
- Centralized log storage
- Vault integrations – Connect 1Password, Doppler, or Infisical for zero-knowledge credential handling (no more plain text files with credentials)
- 10 Gbps connected infrastructure (Pro tier) – High-throughput Linux systems for large transfers
I hope that you sponsor the rclone project given that it’s the core of your business! I couldn’t find any indication online that you do give back to the project. I hope I’m wrong.
Gifts do not confer obligation. If you give me a screwdriver and I use it to run my electrical installation service business, I don’t owe you a payment.
This idea that one must “give back” after receiving a gift freely given is simply silly.
How do you deal with how poorly rclone handles rate limits? It doesn't honor dropbox's retry-after header and just adds an exponential back off that, in my migrations, has resulted in a pause of days.
I've adjusted threads and the various other controls rclone offers but I still feel like I'm not see it's true potential because the second it hits a rate limit I can all but guarantee that job will have to be restarted with new settings.
I honestly haven't used it with Dropbox before, have you tried adjusting --tpslimit 12 --tpslimit-burst 0 flags? Are you creating a dedicated api key for the transfer? Rate limits may vary between Plus/Advanced forum.rclone.org is quite active you may want to post more details there.
I prefer rsync because of its delta transfer which doesn't resend files already on the destination, saving bandwidth. This combined with rsync's ability to work over ssh lets me sync anywhere rsync runs, including the cloud. It may not be faster than rclone but it is more conserving on bandwidth.
Rclone can "sync" with a range of different ways to check if the existing files are the same. If no hashes are available (e.g. WebDAV) I think you can set it to check by timestamp (with a tolerance) and size.
Edit: oh I see, delta transfer only sends the changed parts of files?
Thanks for sharing, hadn't seen it but at almost the same time he made that post I too was struggling to get decent NAS<>NAS transfer speeds with rsync. I should have thought to play more with rclone! I ended up using iSCSI but that is a lot more trouble.
>In fact, some compression modes would actually slow things down as my energy-efficient NAS is running on some slower Arm cores
Depending on the number/type of devices in the setup and usage patterns, it can be effective sometimes to have a single more powerful router and then use it directly as a hop for security or compression (or both) to a set of lower power devices. Like, I know it's not E2EE the same way to send unencrypted data to one OPNsense router, Wireguard (or Nebula or whatever tunnel you prefer) to another over the internet, and then from there to a NAS. But if the NAS is in the same physically secure rack directly attached by hardline to the router (or via isolated switch), I don't think in practice it's significantly enough less secure at the private service level to matter. If the router is a pretty important lynchpin anyone, it can be favorable to lean more heavily on that so one can go cheaper and lower power elsewhere. Not that more efficiency, hardware acceleration etc are at all bad, and conversely sometimes might make sense to have a powerful NAS/other servers and a low power router, but there are good degrees of freedom there. Handier then ever in the current crazy times where sometimes hardware that was formerly easily and cheaply available is now a king's ransom or gone and one has to improvise.
I wonder if the at least partially the reason for the speed up isn't the multi-threading, but instead that rclone maybe doesn't compress transferred data by default. That's what rsync does when using SSH, so for already compressed data (like videos for example) disabling SSH compression when invoking rsync speeds it up significantly:
It turns out, fpart does just that! Fpart is a Filesystem partitioner. It helps you sort file trees and pack them into bags (called "partitions"). It is developed in C and available under the BSD license.
rclone is not as good as rsync for doing ad-hoc transfers; for anything not using the filesystem, you need to set up a configuration, which adds friction. It realy is purpose built for recurring transfers rather than "I need to move X to Y just once"
One thing that sets rsync apart perhaps is the handling of hard links when you don't want to send both/duplicated files to the destination? Not sure if rclone can do that.
zsync is better for that. zsync precalculates all the hashes and puts them in a file alongside the main one. The client downloads the hashes, compares them to what it has then downloads the parts it is missing.
With rsync, you upload hashes of what you have, then the source has to do all the hashing work to figure out what to send you. It's slightly more efficient, but If you are supporting even 10s of downloads it's a lot of work for the source.
The other option is to send just a diff, which I believe e.g. Google Chrome does. Google invented Courgette and Zucchini which partially decompile binaries then recompile them on the other end to reduce the size of diffs. These only work for exact known previous versions, though.
I wonder if the ideas of Courgette and Zucchini can be incorporated into zsync's hashes so that you get the minimal diff, but the flexibility of not having a perfect previous version to work from.
rclone is super cool, but unfortunately many of the providers it supports has such low ratelimits, that it's fairly difficult to use it to transfer much data at all.
This has been my problem. Not necessarily that the rate limits are low, many can be gotten around by using multiple users to do the work since the limits are per user, but how rclone handles those rate limits when they hit them. The exponential back off will end up making hours and days long delays that will screw a migration.
SSH was never really meant to be a high performance data transfer tool, and it shows. For example, it has a hardcoded maximum receive buffer of 2MiB (separate from the TCP one), which drastically limits transfer speed over high BDP links (even a fast local link, like the 10gbps one the author has). The encryption can also be a bottleneck. hpn-ssh [1] aims to solve this issue but I'm not so sure about running an ssh fork on important systems.
1. https://github.com/rapier1/hpn-ssh
reply