Prev: Query in Linux queuing discipline implementation
Next: DNS not working well on ubuntu8
From: Chris Davies on 4 May 2008 10:09
In comp.os.linux.misc Goran Ivanic <goran(a)lycos.com> wrote:
> Assume I want to transfer large amounts of stuff from one server to
> another (through Internet).

Either you do or you don't. It's hard enough understanding people's
questions without having unnecessary assumptions thrown about.


> Which method should I prefer:
> ftp or rsync ?

Your preference is entirely up to you. Personally, if it really was
"large amounts of stuff", I'd consider sending a tape through the post.


> What are the Pros and Cons?
> Which is faster?
> Which is more stable?

I think you probably ought to go and do your own homework, don't you?
Chris
From: Unruh on 4 May 2008 14:06
Dan Stromberg <dstromberglists(a)gmail.com> writes:

>On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:52:33 +0000, Goran Ivanic wrote:

>> Assuem I want to transfer large amounts of stuff from one server to
>> another (through Internet).
>>
>> Which method should I prefer:
>>
>> ftp or rsync ?
>>
>> What are the Pros and Cons?
>>
>> Which is faster?
>>
>> Which is more stable?
>>
>> Goran

>Here's a comparison of ssh, rsh, rsync, NFS, ftp and pnetcat for such a
>purpose:

>http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~dstromberg/protocol-comparison.html

Using rsync on ssh, the site
http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/
shows taht it depends on far away the other machine is. If it is on the
same network where the roundtrip times are say 100usec, then even on Gb
links the standard ssh buffer is fast enough. If the machine to which you
are transfering stuff is much further away (many 10s-100s of msec) then ssh
acts as a bottleneck. But the code on that page claims to fix that problem.

So, for stability and for verification of the transfer, it is hard to beat
rsync. ftp, nfs,... do not verify that the data received is the same as the
data transfered. Of course you can put in an extra step to verify it.


From: Nikhil on 4 May 2008 14:33
Michael Heiming wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.networking Unruh <unruh-spam(a)physics.ubc.ca>:
>> Dave <foo(a)coo.com> writes:
>
>>> Goran Ivanic wrote:
>>>> Assuem I want to transfer large amounts of stuff from one server to another (through Internet).
>
>>>> Which method should I prefer:
>
>>>> ftp or rsync ?
> [..]
>
>>> My guess is ftp will be faster. It just moves the files, and does not
>>> care whether they exist on the other end or not.
>
>> On large files that is a trivial overhead. rsync can also checks if the
>> files transfered are the same or not. ftp does not
>> From man rsync
>> Note that rsync always verifies that each transferred file was
>> correctly reconstructed on the receiving side by checking its
>> whole-file checksum,...
>
> I'd also take a look into 'unison', it is faster the rsync in
> certain situation and its GUI might make things easier for
> beginners, though you really want to use it from the shell to
> take most advantages.
>
hey Michael,

what else unison can offer in particular what rsync cannot at this point
of time? What I understand is rsync is a one way transferr system
whereas unison can do multi-way sync of file transferrs across like
wansync/intellisync ... is that correct?
From: Moody on 5 May 2008 07:58
On May 4, 7:09 pm, Chris Davies <chris-use...(a)roaima.co.uk> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Goran Ivanic <go...(a)lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > Assume I want to transfer large amounts of stuff from one server to
> > another (through Internet).
>
> Either you do or you don't. It's hard enough understanding people's
> questions without having unnecessary assumptions thrown about.
>
> > Which method should I prefer:
> > ftp or rsync ?
>


I would rather go for rsync, it gives you a lot more functionality
over ftp,,,you may customize and do stuff like files to retain or
not...


> Your preference is entirely up to you. Personally, if it really was
> "large amounts of stuff", I'd consider sending a tape through the post.
>
> > What are the Pros and Cons?
> > Which is faster?
> > Which is more stable?
>
> I think you probably ought to go and do your own homework, don't you?
> Chris

From: Ertugrul Söylemez on 5 May 2008 08:18
goran(a)lycos.com (Goran Ivanic) wrote:

> Assuem I want to transfer large amounts of stuff from one server to
> another (through Internet).
>
> Which method should I prefer:
>
> ftp or rsync ?
>
> What are the Pros and Cons?

Assuming your FTP connection is secured (SSL/TLS), for first-time
transfer, it may be better than Rsync, whereas Rsync is better for
incremental updates, and also for first-time transfers using suitable
command line switches. One further advantage of Rsync is that you can
make use of your existing SSH PKI.


> Which is faster?

Depends on many details. I don't know whether in FTP you can reuse the
data channel, but if you can't, Rsync should be faster in almost all
cases. FTP may be faster for a few large files. Rsync is almost
certainly faster for lots of tiny files, and so on. In some cases, tar
used cleverly through SSH may be faster than both, but usually Rsync
will be just fine.


> Which is more stable?

FTPS and Rsync are both very stable.


Regards,
Ertugrul.


--
http://ertes.de/

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Query in Linux queuing discipline implementation
Next: DNS not working well on ubuntu8