Jump to content
Covecube Inc.
  • 0
gokuz

Super Slow download Google Drive

Question

I'm having speeds up to 100MB/s = 800Mb/s, speeds direct download from google drive from pure transferring, no encryption. This essentially maxes out my internet plan which is 1Gbps.

 

Proof = http://imgur.com/a/lqm2y

 

 

But when i try to download through stablebit i get this shitty speeds of 2MB/s = 16Mb/s, shown here, http://imgur.com/a/Lu61B.

 

I'm still on trial to test this out. I really want this to work and would like to purchase your product. Please help me fix this.

 

These are my settings : http://imgur.com/a/TQM4F

 

10TB drive, 10gb local cache, 20mb chunk.

 

I see a lot of success stories which made me try this in the first place. Do help me fix this problem.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

No idea if its the same cause I was seeing, but with the .778 build on a 100TB google drive, I was seeing the same problem, upgrading to .782 build has solved it for me, now getting speeds maxing my connection (which is a low slower than your admittedly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yea bummer..

 

80Mbs or 80MBs?

 

coz the bytes and bits matters!

take a screenshot please, will at least give me some hope.

I am on .777 and it doesn't really max out my line. It gets 25Mb/s my line can do 10000Mb/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

we on the same boat mate. anyone knows how to solve this thing?

anyome who actually paid for the service please advice since the people here wont reply to trial users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

we on the same boat mate. anyone knows how to solve this thing?

anyome who actually paid for the service please advice since the people here wont reply to trial users.

 

I updated to 783 and its been working quite well now. You want to change your prefetch to 100 MB or 400 MB at least. Again if you are having issues with download i recommend reauthorizing your account as well, because of the API pool issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I updated to 783 and its been working quite well now. You want to change your prefetch to 100 MB or 400 MB at least. Again if you are having issues with download i recommend reauthorizing your account as well, because of the API pool issue.

What speeds are you getting?

 

I have no choice but to not use your product if this goes on. No support to resolve my issue. Has sent a ticket 2 days ago = no replies. Post forum = no replies.

 

TBH this is a dead service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What speeds are you getting?

 

I have no choice but to not use your product if this goes on. No support to resolve my issue. Has sent a ticket 2 days ago = no replies. Post forum = no replies.

 

TBH this is a dead service.

 

If you could stop being a prick and actually look at what date it is! a lot of companies close down between chriatmas and new years!

 

i get around 300-400 mbit download on my 1 gbit line!

 

Trust me, hostility doesnt result in good customer service

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm sorry if i come about it aggressively. trust me, i really want this to work.

 

what are your settings? i would like to copy yours and test it again. 300-400 download will make me buy it instantly tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm sorry if i come about it aggressively. trust me, i really want this to work.

 

what are your settings? i would like to copy yours and test it again. 300-400 download will make me buy it instantly tbh.

 

20 mb chunks,

 

20 mb minimal dowbload

 

1 mb prefetch activation

400 MB prefetch forward

1500 prefetch timeframe

 

10 upload threads

20 download threads

 

to set minimal download you have to detach and reattach the drive - it is set in the attach screen! if the drive was made in .463 you maybe will have to remake the drive as they added the feature afterwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

for chunks, i see that i can change it everytime i reattach.

 

lets say i create the drive with 100mb chunks. then detached and reattach it with 20mb.

 

does this make a difference for the file itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It's not your settings, it's a problem with the software.   All you can do is wait until it's fixed. 

 

I think it is a problem with disks created in the latest version, or with large disks.    I'm using 1.0.0.784. 

 

I have an old virtual disk created with version 1.0.0.4xx and that disk gets 40-50Mbit download.   I'm was not happy with that speed because I've got a 100Mbit connection.   I had read that you could get MUCH faster speeds with a 20MB provider chunk size.   So I decided to upgrade to the latest version and create a new disk with 20MB chunks.    It is super slow (10Mbit) download from my new disk.   I noticed it was using a lot of CPU (and it's a good cpu) so I tried an unecrypted drive too with 20MB chunks.     That's the same speed (10Mbit) and uses a bit less CPU. 

 

The virtual disk that was created under the old version still pulls 40-50Mbit on the latest version, but the virtual disks created under the latest version max out at 10Mbit.   

 

My conclusion is that disks created with the latest version are not usable.   

 

I would give it a few months and try again then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah 783 is now giving me great speeds. However i honestly think it varies based on how many users are using it. More users = more API calls meaning you dont get as much. But this is a theory i do not know the extent of how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

i gave up on the speeds. went for rclone instead. much better than this shtty software and its free.

 

Rclone has a very different use case.  It's only for backing up and encrypting data to the cloud.  You can't stream encrypted content from the drive without downloading the whole file like you can with Stablebit.  If storing encrypted data in the cloud without touching it for a while is what you are looking for, then Rclone would be a better program for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Rclone has a very different use case.  It's only for backing up and encrypting data to the cloud.  You can't stream encrypted content from the drive without downloading the whole file like you can with Stablebit.  If storing encrypted data in the cloud without touching it for a while is what you are looking for, then Rclone would be a better program f

Well, while I dont agree with the other guy about clouddrive being no good, its working great for me, you certainly can do that with rclone too, have just set it up on a vps to test it, integrated fully with a sonarr/sab/plex workflow. Oddly enough, I'm getting quite poor write performance with it to google drive right now, but was fine earlier. But basically, yeah, that scenario works well with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Rclone has a very different use case. It's only for backing up and encrypting data to the cloud. You can't stream encrypted content from the drive without downloading the whole file like you can with Stablebit. If storing encrypted data in the cloud without touching it for a while is what you are looking for, then Rclone would be a better program for you.

i suggest to everyone that wants stablebit to work as intended to change to rclone. the reasons are as follows:

1) its encrypyed

2) super fast dl/ul getting 800/400mbps stable

3) you can definitely mount and share it thru samba (linux mount>windows), making it a freaking network drive just like you would stablebit.

4) you can even download from said network drive

5) and of course it doesn't download while streaming, which is also SMOOTH AF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah 783 is now giving me great speeds. However i honestly think it varies based on how many users are using it. More users = more API calls meaning you dont get as much. But this is a theory i do not know the extent of how it works.

 

 

Around 1.0.0.770 we implemented a pool for the API keys.  When you create a new drive, mount an existing drive or jsut reauthotize the drive, it will switch over to using this pool of API keys.

 

This should significantly reduce the load on any single key and prevent the "rate limit exceeded" errors from occurring (as much).

 

Additionall, in the 1.0.0.783 build, we fixed the performance issues that people were experience. 

Which was being caused by the new "chunk ID"  system. It was reading the entire database into memory, rather than just the sections that were needed.   For small drives, this isn't an issue... but for the 10+TB drives, this would consume a LOT of disk IO and memory.  

Since that was fixed, the performance should be much better. 

 

 

So the latest betas should get rather good performance. 

 

 

 

i suggest to everyone that wants stablebit to work as intended to change to rclone. the reasons are as follows:

1) its encrypyed

2) super fast dl/ul getting 800/400mbps stable

3) you can definitely mount and share it thru samba (linux mount>windows), making it a freaking network drive just like you would stablebit.

4) you can even download from said network drive

5) and of course it doesn't download while streaming, which is also SMOOTH AF

 

rclone is a file based solution. 

StableBit CloudDrive is a block based disk solution. 

 

Two entirely different products, attempting to meet very different needs.

 

That said, Previous Versions works on StableBit CloudDrive, as do block based backup solutions. 

 

You CANNOT say that about RCLONE though.  

 

Additionally, RCLONE doesn't cache or prefetch data, as far as I'm aware. Which StableBit CloudDrive does. 

 

And "free" doesn't inherently make it better.  In fact, in many cases it makes it MUCH MUCH worse.  If it's free, where does support come from?  In many cases, "the community".  Which may mean "absolutely none, unless you're really lucky". 

 

 

 

We get it, you like RCLONE and it fits your needs better that StableBit CloudDrive.  Congrats, I'm glad that you found the

solution that is best for you. 

 

But please, don't push it as "the only good solution", just because you like it better.  

 

RCLONE is CLI only, and has no GUI.  StableBit CloudDrive does.  You can setup a drive in a few clicks with StableBit CloudDrive, but it takes more than that for RCLONE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

the support you mentioned here is 4 days late. which is counter intuitive.

 

rather than telling me what i already know. why not explain what's the difference between block based and file based? and the pros and cons

 

the reason i came to stablebit is:

1) save my files in the cloud

2) it needs to be encrypted as sending unencrypted stuff online is a disaster

 

I'm sure its the same for most people. note keyword: FILES

 

so why not help others find a better way than your product that has 4 days superb support delay which is much faster than community support mind you. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@gokuz: 

Because the solution to the issue had actually already been posted: 

 

No idea if its the same cause I was seeing, but with the .778 build on a 100TB google drive, I was seeing the same problem, upgrading to .782 build has solved it for me, now getting speeds maxing my connection (which is a low slower than your admittedly)

 

 

And this is meant to be a community forum, and not necessarily a support forum, so it doesn't get checked as regularly.

 

And if there is a real issue, we prefer people to head to https://stablebit.com/Contact, which is linked under the "Support" link in the main website, in a large part because we do get to those faster.

 

 

As for block vs file, well, unless you're renaming the files, the filenames themselves may indicate what the data is, even when it's encrypted.  By extension, or by the actual file name.  it's pretty obvious what "ThisShow.S04E12.Episode.Title-RLSGRP.MKV" is, even if the data is encrypted.  And you better believe that Amazon, Google, etc are well within their rights to remove files based SOLELY on the file name. 

By using a block based solution, it provides complete obfuscation of the data, as the file name is not visible on the provider at all, rather than partial provided by encrypting the file's contents. 

 

 

And yes, maxing out your bandwidth is (close to) ideal. And we would ideally like to hit that speed. 

Unfortunately, it's harder for us to test this out as we live in the US and are generally limited to the poor speeds available here. 

 

That said, the latest versions have been getting very good speed, as reported by the various members with truly high speed internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

well, if you read my previous posts, i did comment on having already sending a ticket to my problem, no response either. maybe coz its the holidays but come on, a potential paid service should have fast replies even during holidays.

 

i have a question, have you even tried rclone, your competition? your response says a clear no. as rclone is able to encrypt both the files and filenames.

 

so, anything thats encrypted will be a jumbled mess without any extensions whatsoever.

i.e tvshow.mkv > hydgvd76473jfifhhfrj

 

i get that block might be much more secure, but at what cost? the speed difference is night and day.

 

having 80/40 for stablebit

 

800/400 for rclone.

 

i just want to share what i learnt so unless you get it up and running to get 800/400, I don't see the real benefit in using your product at all. its just how the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...