Ken Young writes:
> Hello,[1;5B
>
>
> The methods I know,
>
> 1. scp
> pros: the native tool in the OS
> cons: you will either input password or put key pairs into servers for
> authentication.
Works for simple cases.
> 2. rsync
> pros: it can transfer data by increasement
> cons: you need to setup rsyncd server and make the correct authorization.
Works for simple and complex cases.
> 3. ftp/ftps
> pros: easy to use
> cons: need to setup ftpd server, and the way is not that secure?
Whenever possible, I'd prefer 1 or 2 over this.
> 4. rclone
> pros:easy to use
> cons: hard to setup (you may need a cloud storage for middleware).
I only use rclone when I want to target a cloud storage.
A „cloud storage for middleware” does not seem sensible to me when I can
copy using methods 1 and 2 without using such a middleware.
> For me I most often use scp + rsync. and what's your choice?
These are my standard choices, too. In automated scenarios I often prefer
rsync over scp due to more flexibility in configuration.
My additional tools for special purposes:
5. lsyncd
If you need to keep directories in sync continuously, there is a tool called
`lsyncd` that automates repeated invocation of `rsync` in a smart way.
6. tar + netcat (or tar + ssh in very rare cases)
Using tar sacrifices all the flexibility of rsync but may attain a
significantly higher performance and does not need a lot of flags to do the
right thing by default (i.e. preserve everything when acting as root). I
prefer this variant when migrating to a new disk or PC because it seems to
be the most efficient variant in a "local trusted network and no speedup
from incremental copying" scenario.
I documented my approach to this here:
https://masysma.net/37/data_transfer_netcat_tar.xhtml
HTH and YMMV
Linux-Fan
öö