I'm a bit puzzled by this? Why is rsync faster than scp? Doesn't rsync use scp beneath or does it do something more efficient? Is there some way to speed up scp?
|
For a large number of small files rysnc is much faster than scp. They say it's because it has smaller overhead. For one large file, I would expect similar results. |
|||
|
|
|
Rsync will obviously be faster than scp if the target already contains some of the source files, since rsync only copies the differences. But I suspect your question was about doing a straightforward copy to an empty target. You've passed the You can also enable compression with Older versions of rsync used rsh rather than ssh as the default transport layer, to a fair comparison would be between rsync and rcp. But ssh has been the default since 2.6.0 released on 2004-01-01. With identical compression settings, I'd expect rsync and scp to have essentially the same speed. Please share benchmarks if you find otherwise. |
|||
|
|
|
It used to be the other way around, but I believe rsync's speed has improved greatly the past few revisions. It also depends on how many files you're copying. If it's a lot, rsync will usually be faster because scp spawns a new process for each file you're copying. You can try weakening the cipher scp uses to see if it speeds up. Last I recall, the arcfour cipher was the fastest. |
|||
|
|
|
Are you re-copying files over existing ones? If so, rsync's ability to block compare and only copy the differences will be relevant. |
|||
|
|
|
For my testing, rsync is faster than scp, you can use iotop to test them on transfering the same file:
Maybe you'll get different result, but you can test them youself. BTW, while using scp, do not foget to choose its cipher by:
While |
|||
|
|