On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 14:42 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: > > Yes, if you are going to be transferring more than one file you > > might as well do it in way you can interrupt and restart > > efficiently. And, scp doesn't have the handy and obvious > > '-a' counterpart to gnu cp and rsync. > > Nor the fabulously efficient transfer of only the changed bits of a > file. :) > > I agree completely that rsync is a better tool for most jobs like this > and use it all the time myself, while I only rarely use scp. > > Of course, it's man page is rather large and can be daunting to get > your head around on first read. But it's features make it well worth > the time spent learning to use it. I find this technique works for almost everything I want to copy: cd source_dir rsync -essh -av . user@remote_host:/path/to/dir (or individual files/wildcards may be specified instead of . for the whole current directory tree). The final element on the target path will be created if it doesn't exist (but only one) and by specifying . as the source you don't have to remember whether or not to add a trailing slash to a directory name. For low bandwidth connections I might throw in the -z flag for compression. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
