Which is faster rsync or ftp

Note that if the remote host uses a port other than the default of 22, it can be specified in the command. For example, copying a file from host over a non-standard SSH port :. For more information on scp please visit the following website. Please refer to the documentation for that particular software, but the basic principles are the same, i. For example, if there is a local copy of a 50MB file and a newer version of the file on a remote system has only 1MB of differences, only the changed 1MB along with minor overhead is transferred between both systems.

Rsync, by default, finds files that need to be transferred using a "quick check" algorithm by default that looks for files that have changed in size or in last-modified time.

By transferring less data, rsync is considerably more useful when dealing with slow or small bandwidth network connections. However, it has no advantage over other file transfer protocols such as ftp or scp when copying new files between systems.

For copying a large amount of data from one server to another, rsync is the best choice. It only takes a minute to sign up. Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. How can I transfer a file from one server to another server with a great speed? To transfer a file of 2 GB its taking around 3 hours. Is there any other procedure to transfer a file which is faster than FTP.

Is this normal for your location? If you transfer 2GB to other sites, what sort of speed do you usually see? What is the network speed at your location and at the remote location? The transfer speed over long distances will mostly depend on the network bandwidth available between the two locations and for any hop in between. You are transferring data over the Internet which means that speeds can vary greatly from time to time.

The Internet does not guarantee a minimum speed. Yes, this is not going to be secure, so you have to close the ports for all except for the two nodes. No guarantee, no security, no authentication The last two are problably the same thing, but I wanted to get 3 steps out of it. It's as simple as "just send the file. I got the sense that whilst there might be a lot of things annoying about FTP, it's not in itself a slow protocol. I wouldnt expect that, leaving everything else unchanged, merely changing from FTP to another protocol is going to give you the kind of speed improvement you seem to be expecting.

How do you know the problem isn't bandwidth? Can you try doing a test with scp or rsync and comparing with FTP? Do you have TCP window scaling enabled at both ends? Even if you have a lot of bandwidth, connections between the U. If window scaling is enabled and you're still seeing poor FTP performance you might try running rsync in parallel. If youre trying to transfer a single 2GB file ftp is one of the most clean and fast protocols, you can also safely use resume feature in case of interruption during the transfer.

Ftp is a bad idea if you're trying to transfer a great number of little files, because you have a huge useless activity opening and closing connections for each file. Rsync via ssh or scp sftp are good alternatives, but you must consider that encryption significantly reduce throughput. You can use a light algorithm like blowfish 'scp -c blowfish' or 'rsync -e "ssh -c blowfish"' but the speed will always lower than ftp. If your file is similar to one already at the destination you could use rsync with the --fuzzy option.

Fuzzy will look for a similarly named file in the destination directory and use it as the starting point for the copy sending only the differences between the two files across the wire. As an example, here I'm copying xwiki-enterprise-web It would be even better if the files were more similar as in this specific case the newer version xwiki is actually 26M larger than the older copy.