4 ms·

xz + scp will still be faster than this. its not about the speed at which scp goes, is that the author doesn't compression before sending over scp, but does whe

by zobzu 12y ago

xz + scp will still be faster than this. its not about the speed at which scp goes, is that the author doesn't compression before sending over scp, but does when he sends over nc and what not... heck you can just use rsync over SSH for simplicity.

wyldfire 12y ago
> xz + scp will still be faster than this That's not the case if the data you're sending is already compressed. But you're right that it's not a fair comparison. scp/ssh also has integrated compression with "-C".
- zobzu 12y ago
  gzip: tar -cz /home/me/source/directory | ssh target tar -xz --directory /home/you/target/directory xz: tar -cJ /home/me/source/directory | ssh target tar -xJ --directory /home/you/target/directory ssh -C won't be as good. in particular with a recent xz that's threaded it will probably be faster than OP's with a good CPU