3 ms·

This doesn't mirror my experience at all, and I think blaming it on fanboys isn't fair. I used Google Takeout recently, had it set to split into 50GB tar.gz chu

This doesn't mirror my experience at all, and I think blaming it on fanboys isn't fair. I used Google Takeout recently, had it set to split into 50GB tar.gz chunks, and it worked perfectly fine. I wasn't logged out once, and downloaded the archive with around 90 MB/s (720 mbps). It was a very smooth data export experience. I'm very much not a Google/Android fanboy and avoid Google's services wherever possible. The OP is being downvoted because their experience isn't representative. EDIT: It does seem that there are more people than I expected for whom the experience isn't as good as the one I had, so maybe Google should test this with (and make it work better on) internet connections that aren't as good as their office lines.

acdha 6y ago
I’ve also used it and the original poster’s experience rang truer than yours. Most people do not have gigabit internet connections and manually downloading the default smaller chunks is annoying.
- lorenzhs 6y ago
  But can't you just download larger chunks over whatever connection you have? Or is it common for internet connects in (I assume) the US to be so bad that you can't download a 20GB or 50GB file without errors?
  - acdha 6y ago
    It’s really a question of how well it resumes: if you’re trickling in a 20GB file and get a couple lost packets at 10GB, was that earlier transfer wasted? Most people use wireless so it’s not hard to have a transient failure which will disrupt a TCP connection but won’t last that long in absolute terms.
- ConceptJunkie 6y ago
  Yeah, it's been a real hit-or-miss process for me, too. The process is way too manual, and increasing the chunk size from 2GB to 10GB causes a lot more failures of the individual downloads for me. And I don't particularly want to hear "get a better network connection". My connection works just fine for everything else. That said, if you're able to download everything, it's reasonably well-organized, although as stated elsewhere, there's a lot of duplication of data.
rpdillon 6y ago
I just finished the process last night for about 80GB of photos and GP's comment represents my experience very well. It took hours of tedious clicking and logging in dozens of times to get through it. Miserable.

acdha 6y ago

I’ve also used it and the original poster’s experience rang truer than yours. Most people do not have gigabit internet connections and manually downloading the default smaller chunks is annoying.

lorenzhs 6y ago
But can't you just download larger chunks over whatever connection you have? Or is it common for internet connects in (I assume) the US to be so bad that you can't download a 20GB or 50GB file without errors?
- acdha 6y ago
  It’s really a question of how well it resumes: if you’re trickling in a 20GB file and get a couple lost packets at 10GB, was that earlier transfer wasted? Most people use wireless so it’s not hard to have a transient failure which will disrupt a TCP connection but won’t last that long in absolute terms.
ConceptJunkie 6y ago
Yeah, it's been a real hit-or-miss process for me, too. The process is way too manual, and increasing the chunk size from 2GB to 10GB causes a lot more failures of the individual downloads for me. And I don't particularly want to hear "get a better network connection". My connection works just fine for everything else. That said, if you're able to download everything, it's reasonably well-organized, although as stated elsewhere, there's a lot of duplication of data.

rpdillon 6y ago

I just finished the process last night for about 80GB of photos and GP's comment represents my experience very well. It took hours of tedious clicking and logging in dozens of times to get through it. Miserable.