ahistorical immaterialistTIL that the scp command does not, by default, compress files it transfers, and that you need to add the -C flag to make it do that, and by doing that I have sped up my transfer speed about 40x, and without this knowledge I have probably wasted literally days of my life waiting for things in the past.
Hynek Schlawack@jimbob Also scp is actually deprecated which keeps boggling my mind.
Matunos@hynek looks like— in RedHat at least— the scp protocol is deprecated but the command remains, now by default uses the sftp protocol under the hood https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/openssh-scp-deprecation-rhel-9-what-you-need-know
⛧TJC⛧@hynek @jimbob what is the source for this? What’s the “official” replacement? I would have assumed even rsync was built on scp
That said, I see no reason to use scp over rsync. Yes , I can never remember all the flags, but that’s what shell aliases are for, since you only need a small handful of combinations to do anything.
Mark Tomczak@mtomczak @hynek @jimbob I agree that rsync can be dangerous. That’s why I heavily use shell aliases / functions (fish) for these. I only ever use a small combo of flags, so once I get those use cases I make functions with pre canned flags and some checks on slashes and whatnot. It’s a one time pain but then I never think about it again.
Dakota 💀@tjc @jimbob Here’s some details: https://lwn.net/Articles/835962/
Not sure at this point if the sftp-based scp that’s teased in the article and IIRC was linked in this thread is more of a stopgap or the new real thing. I personally prefer scp too because it’s just simpler and less dangerous to use.
Quinn Comendant@tjc @hynek @jimbob Scp relies on legacy protocols and lacks proper args sanitation.
New versions of scp have been updated to use sftp internally to avoid the security issues, so maybe safe to use depending on OS, but it’s safer just to always use rsync instead.
Here’s a summary from Redhat with more info and links. https://access.redhat.com/articles/5284081
