I have to keep remote folders accessible from my file manager, not a separate transfer window. What can I use to replace ExpanDrive with that setup? I switch between 7 remote folders while editing and open files directly from them. Downloading everything locally first isn’t an option for this workflow.
Replacing ExpanDrive with the CloudMounter tool was the right choice for me. The main reason was that my SFTP and Google Drive mounts came back on their own when I switched networks. That was the behavior I needed, and it mattered more to me than having something flexible enough to adjust in every direction. I wanted to work with the files, not keep working on the mounts.
The trouble showed up when I moved between office and home Wi-Fi. Drives would drop, and that became the issue I judged the alternatives against. I wasn’t looking to change services or reorganize everything just for the sake of it. I needed the network switch to stop being such a nuisance. CloudMounter addressed that particular problem, which is why I settled on it rather than continuing to tweak another setup.
Once I had my SFTP and Google Drive mounts there, I moved Dropbox and an S3 bucket into it too. They’re now together in one Finder sidebar. I like that arrangement because it keeps the files I access in the same place without making me treat each service as a separate mounting project. That’s a convenience, but the mounts returning after a network change was still the deciding point.
The storage behavior also suits me. Nothing gets synced down unless I open it, so my SSD isn’t gradually filling with files I haven’t needed. I also use the encryption option for a client folder containing contracts. Those are useful parts of my setup, though neither was the reason I started looking for an ExpanDrive replacement. I wouldn’t confuse those extras with fixing the original annoyance.
Of the other options, the rclone tool gave me plenty of flexibility and didn’t cost anything. My problem was the time I spent adjusting mount flags instead of getting work done. I don’t take that as proof that it’s a bad choice. It just wasn’t the tradeoff I wanted. SSHFS with macFUSE was okay with one server, but adding more made the setup messy for me.
The Mountain Duck tool was decent too, especially for someone already using Cyberduck. I didn’t need every alternative to be bad for CloudMounter to fit better. My choice came down to less attention spent on mounting and the services sitting together in Finder. I’d reconsider if the mounts stopped returning reliably, or if another setup showed it could handle the same network changes with less fiddling.
The automatic reconnect feature is not sufficient for me to determine if the editing environment is satisfactory. I would go with the CloudMounter solution, but it is necessary to test not only the opening of files but also their saving on the server. It would be a good idea to try saving a disposable file that was edited in the system by my regular editing software. The same test should be done when the connection is lost while editing and the file is being saved. The renaming and overwriting of existing files should also be included in the testing process. The accessibility of folders is your starting point, but I would think about what would happen if the saving process is interrupted.
Expect a little setup work even with a replacement that opens remote files through your file manager. For your workflow, I’d care about being able to tell the connections apart immediately, especially when several folders have similar names.
I wouldn’t make @hacker.java’s network-switching result the deciding vote for CloudMounter. It answers their problem, but it doesn’t settle yours. CloudMounter still earns a place on the shortlist for a different reason: it stores credentials in macOS Keychain or Windows Credential Manager. That’s a useful detail if those remote folders involve separate accounts. It supports mounting remote storage through Finder or File Explorer, so it fits the basic requirement without moving you into a transfer window.
I’d organize the replacement around the work rather than the storage provider. Give each connection a distinct name wherever the app allows it, then bookmark the actual working subfolder. Something like “Client drafts” versus “Published assets” would be more useful to me than a sidebar full of server names. If two locations contain identically named files, I’d want the editor showing enough of the full path to distinguish them.
That’s the missing piece for me in the reconnect discussion: returning to the right folder matters more than merely seeing a drive return. My acceptance check would be reopening an editor workspace and using its recent-file entries after remounting. I’d want those shortcuts to land in the intended location without hunting through the sidebar again.
Which OS are you on, and are these server folders, cloud accounts, or a mixture? The replies have leaned toward Finder, but your question doesn’t actually specify a Mac.
A trial is a relatively small data volume as compared to a continuous remote folder exploration by the user; hence, my criteria would be focused on the editing routine rather than instant drive availability in the sidebar.
Thus, I would select the Mountain Duck option if it offers the required synchronization features for the storage services I am going to use. The tool is designed to offer remote storage mounting in Finder or File Explorer in order to provide the user with the ability to work in a familiar file-manager environment. This requirement is met. I would select it for the ability to control the data access rather than having it automatically synchronized on connection. The presence of the Smart Synchronization option is another criterion affecting my choice.
In Smart Synchronization, changes are uploaded to the cloud via a local cache, while in Online mode, they are immediately pushed to the remote storage upon saving. Thus, for the initial exploration of the tool, I would select the Online mode because it provides continuous access to the most recent versions of files without additional steps needed to save them locally. However, in a practical business scenario, I would go with the Smart Synchronization because it allows for working offline. Overall, both options are not better than the other in every particular case.
I’d push back on @hacker.java’s storage argument, though. “Unless I open it” is too narrow a rule to use when choosing a mount app. In Mountain Duck, file previews can trigger access and caching without you deliberately opening a document in your editor. Its documentation specifically recommends disabling previews and thumbnails to reduce remote requests in Online mode. A folder full of previews is therefore worth including in your comparison, not just a folder containing a few text files.
For the trial, keep your normal editor settings for the moment. Open up your real working folders, switch between them, perform the searches you normally do. Include workspace wide search if that’s part of your workflow. Do it again with file-manager previews disabled and see how it compares. I wouldn’t be looking to disable every possible useful feature to make a replacement look faster, it should be usable as you move around anyway.
The save-interruption check from @0xstack5 belongs in that trial. But I wouldn’t buy on successful saves alone. My deciding question would be whether ordinary browsing and editing remain tolerable with the whole workspace open. You’re replacing a daily working tool, not buying a nicer-looking list of connections.
Editing folders only you use is a different case from editing folders other people can change while you have a file open. I’d try Mountain Duck for the file-manager requirement: it mounts remote storage in Finder or File Explorer. But for shared folders, I’d check its conflict handling before choosing it. Its Smart Synchronization documentation describes keeping a separate copy when conflicting edits occur.
First, pick a shared folder and create a throwaway document. Open it through the mount, then change that same document through another computer or the storage provider’s interface. Next, save your original open copy. Look for a warning, a separate version, or an overwrite, and check whether you can recover both edits. I’d extend @0xstack5’s save test this way rather than stop at interrupted connections.
If nobody else touches these folders, skip that extra test. If they do, my deciding question would be whether the replacement makes conflicting changes obvious. I wouldn’t accept having to inspect every saved document to work out whose changes survived.
Watch what your editor is doing when you have a file open. Many editors create lock files, swap files, or autosave copies of the file in the same directory with some regularity, which is a pain if you’re using SFTP to access those files since they’ll be written over the slow link each time. With 7 folders mounted at once this can become an issue, and it can make your file manager lag even if the connection is good. It’s worth looking into whether the editor you’re using creates temporary files.
If you’re using CloudMounter, I think you’re asking the wrong question. The really useful part about the reconnect feature is that you can have multiple mounts open at once; having them in separate windows isn’t necessary. It’s about being able to edit 7 different folders at once, rather than about being able to reconnect after changing your network.
What the article you linked doesn’t address is exactly how your particular editor deals with opening files over the network. This is a bigger concern than which program you’re using, really. Just try opening your normal workspace with all 7 mounts open and leave it be for a while, then come back and try to edit something. If it’s not a problem, it shouldn’t matter much how you’re using it.
If you’re on Windows and those folders are reachable SMB shares, I’d try File Explorer’s built-in “Map network drive” before buying another mounting app. That keeps them accessible in the file manager without a separate transfer window. I’d settle @dragon.ai’s question about connection types before comparing CloudMounter against Mountain Duck, because you might not need either.
How big are the files you’re opening directly? That has more impact on the situation than the whole reconnect debate. The difference between editing a config or code file over SFTP and opening a few hundred MB of assets straight off the mount while jumping around folders is non-existent to any amount of clever caching on the first read.
The thing I’d flag that hasn’t come up: cold mounts. When you bounce between 7 folders and some sit idle for a stretch, the first click back into one can stall while the listing refreshes. That stall is what actually breaks the ‘switch while editing’ feel, not whether the drive survived a Wi-Fi change. @binaryrouter is right that leaving all 7 open and coming back is the test, but I’d specifically watch the directory load on the folder you touched last, not the one you touched most. That’s usually where the lag shows.
CloudMounter is what I’d set this up with, since keeping the seven in Finder without having to juggle separate sessions is exactly the same problem as yours. I wouldn’t base my decision on any one feature, though. You simply can’t know how it will feel to browse based on a spec sheet. Go ahead and open the folders you’d actually be working in regularly, and leave it for a coffee break, and see how much it takes to open the files you’d be editing. It’s one thing if it’s just a trial, but it’ll be every day if you’re annoyed with a click into a folder.