4 ms·
I presume you know that rsync is a better solution to the problem. Not all of us do. Would you mind explaining why rsync is a better solution?
by martin-adams 8y ago
I presume you know that rsync is a better solution to the problem. Not all of us do. Would you mind explaining why rsync is a better solution?
- vortico 8y agoFor starters, it's a proper replacement for "a bash script that will chunk and scp the files to a central server, and if it fails a chunk, it leaves it in the directory for her to manually re-run". It's installed on almost all Linux and Mac systems, so if your customer is using a script already, they might as well use rsync.
- seszett 8y ago> Would you mind explaining why rsync is a better solution? rsync basically chunks the files and sends the missing (or differing) chunks over scp, leaves the files in the destination directory if something fails, it is more or less an automated tool that already does what the GP is talking about.
- mbesto 8y ago> it is more or less an automated tool that already does what the GP is talking about. But requires someone to be comfortable using a CLI.
- j1elo 8y agoBut that 'someone' is someone who is already running a Bash script and re-running it each time an error occurs. So I don't see the problem here about using a CLI.
- mbesto 8y agoI read it as "I'm running a bash script for someone else so they can pick it up from a server", not "my employee who has this issue created a bash script"...maybe I misinterpreted.
- davehorne 8y agoFor technically capable people there are certainly lot's of good options for sending lots of data fast. We are just trying to make a service that makes this more accessible and requires no setup. As a side note we are currently working on an API and we intend to integrate with rsync so it can be used to upload content to our network.