3 ms·
Curious... I've never even had to think about chunk size when using sftp. It has always "just worked" for transfering files. What scenarios are you talking abo
by crispyambulance 6y ago
Curious... I've never even had to think about chunk size when using sftp. It has always "just worked" for transfering files.
What scenarios are you talking about where chunks are important and you have to be concerned about ordering? Is this strictly for applications that perform large sync'ing jobs where "to-the-limit" performance is important?
It doesn't seem like a huge deal to deprecate scp and start using a short stanza of sftp for simple file transfers.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- formerly_proven 6y agoAs a user of sftp(1) you don't have to care. You can even specify unsupported buffer sizes, because that sftp client does have all that complexity that I described above built-in. But if you need to interact with the protocol - well it's just a headache, plain and simple. (However, sftp(1) will write files non-sequentially - so you really can't just restart a transfer or you'll very likely end up with a corrupted file).