Enhance Internxt’s usability with rclone and backup workflows

Agreed! Mega seems to have no problem with handling lots of small files with rclone, while Internxt is really struggling. Why?? I'd really want to choose Internxt over Mega, because it's open source and based in Europe, but this is kind of a deal breaker :( Also, uploading many small files in the web interface is no problem with Internxt, but that's definitely not an option for a regular backup workflow.

Thank you very much for this post! I strongly second this request. I am on the Internxt lifetime plan and chose Internxt over competitors because it's open source and offers native rclone support. In its current state, rclone support is unfortunately virtually unusable for synchronising folders with a lot of files (no matter how big they are). Just now I have uploaded a small folder (18MB) with 188 files, which took me about 30 minutes using rclone. In comparision, the same folder was uploaded within about one minute via the web interface. Increasing the TPS limit would certainly be a good step towards improving this situation, but I think there might be a further bottleneck lurking somewhere else as well. I have not looked at the implementation yet, but 30min for 188 files of 18MB seems quite extreme and even a quarter of the time would be too much if one wants to synchronise folders with say 2000 files or more. Just for curiosity I have uploaded the same folder on mega.nz, which also offers zero-knowledge encryption and (non-native) rclone support, and the upload completed within less than a minute using rclone. I do want to stay with Internxt though - not only because I'm already on the lifetime plan, but also because I like the company's philosophy of openness and the fact that it is based in Europe. Keep up the good work and I hope to see some improvements on this situation some time in the near future!