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).
Comments
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.