[mdlug] sshfs mount

[Mark Thuemmel]

On 12/31/2011 04:20 PM, Mark Thuemmel wrote:
> On 12/31/2011 10:46 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-12-30 at 19:19 -0500, Mark Thuemmel wrote:
>>> I tend to gravitate to rsync instead of scp because if I get interrupted
>>> I can restart where I left off and update the backup without copying
>>> everything every time.  I don't know if scp supports restarts.
>>
>> No, scp does not support restarts.
>>
>> Depending on the security of the network between the two hosts
>> straight-rsync may be much faster than rsync-ver-ssh.  SCP is pretty
>> slow for file transfers [floating around are patches for
>> unencrypted-ssh, but they haven't made them into any of the
>> distributions I'm using;  look for a cypher (-C) specfication of
>> "none"].
>>
>
> Wouldn't scp unencrypted be pretty much rcp?
>
> rsync with the -z option compresses files that could give a speed
> increase on compressible files.
>
> I guess I was thinking a fairly fast processor on both sides with a
> public Internet connection between.
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug mailing list
> mdlug at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug
>

Hmm..looks like SCP might have a -C option for compression (-c for 
cipher) so that might come close to rsync -z, but doing lots of small 
files gives rsync the advantage of not spawning new processes for each 
file like scp.

Then there is the question of checksum efficiency, filename overhead, 
and latency.  rcync probabably again has the advantage.  Tridgell spent 
a lot of time trying to speed up transfers worrying about latency and 
speed coming up with the rsync algorithm.

Might be interesting to think about the fact of copying a lot of home 
directory files that some files would be duplicated and actually sent twice.