For big files it would make a very noticeable difference actually, try scp with different encryption algorithms even and you will see how much it matters.
With that said, by 'quickly', I was focusing more on easiness and simplicity.
if you read the article, it's because the faster alternatives use multiple streams and/or use compression. it's got nothing to do with encryption. and you can get scp to compress your data first (-C).
I never run an ssh server on my laptops, no reason to really. Secondly, with ssh, it requires you know ip or hostname, both which I don't want to worry about.
Comments
$ scp file host.example.com:
SCP is significantly slower than FTP (and performance was an explicit goal of the project)
This method isn't as fast since it uses encryption.
Yeah few milliseconds are going to make a difference here.
For big files it would make a very noticeable difference actually, try scp with different encryption algorithms even and you will see how much it matters.
With that said, by 'quickly', I was focusing more on easiness and simplicity.
there's a constant size overhead, and file copying is network, not cpu limited (isn't it?). so why would large files be significantly slower?
I am not sure it is fair to say scp is cpu limited per se, but it is slow.
A quick article that may help you out: http://intermediatesql.com/linux/scrap-the-scp-how-to-copy-d...
if you read the article, it's because the faster alternatives use multiple streams and/or use compression. it's got nothing to do with encryption. and you can get scp to compress your data first (-C).
Compression also slows it down: http://www.spikelab.org/transfer-largedata-scp-tarssh-tarnc-...
This has been my experience in practice, too.
This assumes ssh is installed and running.
`bcp` assumes `make` and `gcc` along with a handful of devel headers are installed.
Your intended use is a computer that doesn't have SSH running?
I never run an ssh server on my laptops, no reason to really. Secondly, with ssh, it requires you know ip or hostname, both which I don't want to worry about.
Ah! I had not thought of copying between client computers.
Now it makes sense. And I can see it's use, at home.
Thanks.