4 ms·

No better way to get the absolute maximum possible use of your pipe with the absolute minimum amount of security! Netcat has saved my butt when that 12GB packag

No better way to get the absolute maximum possible use of your pipe with the absolute minimum amount of security! Netcat has saved my butt when that 12GB package absolutely, positively has to be there within the next minute. One of the coolest network utilities around. It's literally like a cat piped through the network. These are all great examples.

cnvogel 14y ago
/me too/ I like it (tar|nc) as a quick alternative when moving data to or from low performance devices such as Android phones. Rsync/SSH really burns a lot of power for encryption. Makes a full x GB Backup much faster to pipe it through netcat (or bashs /dev/tcp if available).
- philsnow 14y ago
  this can help re CPU usage: rsync -e "ssh -c blowfish" However, I'm not sure if anybody uses this these days, since end-to-end time is probably dominated by bandwidth and not cpu these days.
c-oreills 14y ago
If that's your use case then have a look at ncp: http://www.fefe.de/ncp/ http://www.fefe.de/ncp/ From the site: '"ncp" is a utility for copying files in a LAN. It has absolutely no security or integrity checking, no throttling, no features, except one: you don't have to type the coordinates of your peer.'
- calinet6 14y ago
  Sweet :) I wasn't doing it over lan though, totally different subnets here. It's easy to quickly open the port I want to use for netcat on a remote machine and copy files quickly that way. If you're interested in completely saturating all your resources for the maximum possible transfer speed, check out Tsunami: http://tsunami-udp.sourceforge.net/ http://tsunami-udp.sourceforge.net/ -- It's a UDP protocol designed for raw throughput. Also no security or checking, but it does support throttling which is nice. I've tested and it actually does exceed netcat's rate by a few percent, but it's a little less reliable (client and server have to agree on a lot of things). Pretty cool to experiment with though :)
  - kylecordes 14y ago
    As an alternative to all of the above, consider UDPCast. It's point is that it can multicast; but it is also great for point-to-point copies. I adds its own reliability layer, so don't be scared of UDP in the name. It can rate limit, if you want. I've used it to great effect to shuffle a lot of GB to a bunch of servers at the time. Way down at a low level, the network hardware/firmware knows how to send data 1:N. Using that is a single easy command away, but hardly anyone knows it. http://kylecordes.com/2008/multicast-your-db-backups-with-udpcast http://kylecordes.com/2008/multicast-your-db-backups-with-ud...

cnvogel 14y ago

/me too/ I like it (tar|nc) as a quick alternative when moving data to or from low performance devices such as Android phones. Rsync/SSH really burns a lot of power for encryption. Makes a full x GB Backup much faster to pipe it through netcat (or bashs /dev/tcp if available).

philsnow 14y ago
this can help re CPU usage: rsync -e "ssh -c blowfish" However, I'm not sure if anybody uses this these days, since end-to-end time is probably dominated by bandwidth and not cpu these days.

c-oreills 14y ago

If that's your use case then have a look at ncp: http://www.fefe.de/ncp/ http://www.fefe.de/ncp/ From the site: '"ncp" is a utility for copying files in a LAN. It has absolutely no security or integrity checking, no throttling, no features, except one: you don't have to type the coordinates of your peer.'

calinet6 14y ago
Sweet :) I wasn't doing it over lan though, totally different subnets here. It's easy to quickly open the port I want to use for netcat on a remote machine and copy files quickly that way. If you're interested in completely saturating all your resources for the maximum possible transfer speed, check out Tsunami: http://tsunami-udp.sourceforge.net/ http://tsunami-udp.sourceforge.net/ -- It's a UDP protocol designed for raw throughput. Also no security or checking, but it does support throttling which is nice. I've tested and it actually does exceed netcat's rate by a few percent, but it's a little less reliable (client and server have to agree on a lot of things). Pretty cool to experiment with though :)
- kylecordes 14y ago
  As an alternative to all of the above, consider UDPCast. It's point is that it can multicast; but it is also great for point-to-point copies. I adds its own reliability layer, so don't be scared of UDP in the name. It can rate limit, if you want. I've used it to great effect to shuffle a lot of GB to a bunch of servers at the time. Way down at a low level, the network hardware/firmware knows how to send data 1:N. Using that is a single easy command away, but hardly anyone knows it. http://kylecordes.com/2008/multicast-your-db-backups-with-udpcast http://kylecordes.com/2008/multicast-your-db-backups-with-ud...