Re: Copy slower than rsync Re: Bugs and features

[Adrian Phillips]

>>>>> "Nate" == Nate Campi <nate@campin.net> writes:

    >>  Well, even a 1+GB partition only takes a few seconds on a
    >> fast, lightly loaded server with rsync even using
    >> ssh. Obviously when there are lots of differences then rsync is
    >> going to chew memory.

    Nate> You have to mean a 1+GB partition with no changes. No disk

Obviously, although I'm sure many people would like a couple of
hundred MB/sec over their network :-)

    Nate> Unless you mean ssh using public key or kerberos or S/Key

I meant ssh with public key. I'm interested as to how cfengine's key
system is "better" then ssh's.

    Nate> auth then this is not security. Even then, you have
    Nate> encryption and good authentication, which is mostly one way.

    Nate> rsync's server could be made "secure" with IPSec and packet
    Nate> filtering, so that you *know* the host it's originating from
    Nate> and filtering out all others. You can't just say "rsync's
    Nate> server is insecure and rsync over ssh is secure", because it
    Nate> leaves out too much.

Well, standard rsync server is relatively "insecure", is it not. No
public key, no hijacking checking (if that is the correct term for
it). I was under the impression that ssh is recommended because it is
relatively secure if used "properly".

Sincerely,

Adrian Phillips

-- 
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now?  [OK]