[clug] scp alternative
michael at michaelmanning.org
Sat Apr 11 09:51:16 GMT 2009
Getting on in the conversation, but here is my 2 cents worth.
If the machines are know to each other and the network as a whole is
isolated (not on the Internet per say), then why not use something very
simple like hosts.allow and hosts.deny or even the "hosts allow" directive
from within the rsyncd service. Seems a waste to overcomplicate the
replication of large files which, if I am reading right, must not be that
sensitive it you are not concerned with MITM attacks.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 7:03 PM, jm <jeffm at ghostgun.com> wrote:
> Late to the coversation, but I'll add...
> George Bray wrote:
>> I need to build a system that copies lots of compressed files (video)
>> around between different hosts, so scp sounds like the obvious choice.
>> The files, however, are quite large and I'd rather not be wasting
>> resources compressing and encrypting them for the journey.
>> scp can be set to omit compression, fine, but encryption will still
>> occur from what I can see.
>> Does anyone know of an alternative solution where I get the
>> client/host authentication of ssh, but don't get the CPU overhead of
>> encrypting and compressing the payload?
>> PS - I'm trying to avoid fileshares/mounts for robustity over long times.
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
More information about the linux