Are you guys allowing full access to the machine now through LXC containers or some sort of VM?
No - it is the customer, on the client side, that creates an sshfs mount representing their rsync.net account.
It works very well and it is very nice to have a plain old mount point that represents your rsync.net account - especially since you can just browse right into your historical ZFS snapshots, etc.
But in the past, people did that and they got the bright idea to rsync to that local mount point, to do their backups, and that didn't work well.
But my understanding is that nowadays it would work better - you wouldn't download every single file that rsync simply stat'd or listed ...
We still don't recommend it, though. No reason to add that complexity.
Is that still true for sshfs ?
People used to ask us if they should rsync to us directly or sshfs mount and then rsync to the mount, and we told them not to do that since the original rsync stat would basically download all files simply to look at them / size them.
But I don't think that's the case anymore. I think sshfs (or perhaps something about FUSE underneath) is smart about that now ... isn't it ?