WebDAV on Windows: The 3-Layer Speed Test Nobody Talks About
WebDAV on Windows: The 3-Layer Speed Test Nobody Talks About When you mount a WebDAV drive on Windows, three layers of software stand between you and your files. Each one can be the bottleneck. I tested ScsDriver against rclone and the Windows built-in mini-redirector at each layer. The 3 Layers Layer 1: WebDAV client . The piece of software that speaks WebDAV to your server. rclone, Cyberduck,…
Three layers of software separate your files from WebDAV when mounted on Windows. These layers can be the source of bottlenecks. To compare performance, the author tested ScsDriver, rclone, and Windows' built-in mini-redirector at each layer.
Layer 1 consists of the WebDAV client software that communicates with the server. Popular options include rclone, Cyberduck, and ScsDriver.
Layer 2 is the mount driver that converts WebDAV operations into standard filesystem calls. Windows offers two choices: the built-in mini-redirector (webdav.dll) or a third-party FUSE layer like WinFSP which rclone utilizes.
Layer 3 involves the Windows file system cache and any additional user-mode caching provided by the client. To isolate the impact of each layer, the author conducted three tests: listing 1000 small files, copying a 2 GB file, and sequentially reading a 100 MB file.
During the first test, the built-in mini-redirector made 1000 separate PROPFIND requests to the WebDAV server, taking 28 seconds with Nextcloud at home (1 Gbps LAN). In contrast, rclone with WinFSP completed the task in 1.4 seconds by batching the requests. ScsDriver, using the mini-redirector but pre-warming the cache, took 3.2 seconds. For developers working with code repositories or photo libraries, this test is critical, and rclone emerges as the winner.
The second test involved copying a 2 GB file, stressing the upload path. ScsDriver with the mini-redirector achieved 95 MB/s, while rclone with its VFS managed 110 MB/s. Rclone's advantage lies in its use of HTTP/2 multiplexing and chunked uploads, unlike the mini-redirector's single-stream PUT approach. For large media file backups, rclone performs better.
In the third test, both ScsDriver and rclone achieved approximately 200 MB/s reading a 100 MB file sequentially, limited by the SSD's read speed. Once the file is cached, subsequent reads by all three clients are local. For video editing purposes, all clients perform similarly after the first read.
The verdict depends on your usage patterns. If you primarily read files, ScsDriver is a viable choice, offering affordability and simplicity at $5.5 lifetime cost. However, if you frequently browse directories with thousands of files, rclone is the superior option as the mini-redirector can cause frustrations. For those who need faster uploads and auto-resume capabilities, rclone is also the better choice.
Lastly, if you're a developer with a self-hosted Nextcloud and mainly access code, ScsDriver is worth considering, with its 3-second reconnect after sleep being an added benefit. Overall, ScsDriver remains a cost-effective option in 2026. To conduct this test yourself, select a folder with at least 1000 files on your WebDAV server and measure the time taken to open it in Explorer using each client. Share your results in the comments to see if others experience similar performance differences.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
