On 8/10/2012 11:08 AM, Doug wrote:
> All of that is quite correct, but it neglects one parameter: if the
> RF connection depends on directional antennas, which it will
> for any reasonable distance--say 1/2 mile or more--then wind may
> become a significant effect if it causes the antennas to jigg
On 08/10/2012 12:52 AM, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM, lina wrote:
On 9 Aug, 2012, at 23:05, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:00:18PM +0800, lina wrote:
I don't know the reliable of the connection between the two servers, I
guess it's okay.
But from m
Am Mittwoch, 8. August 2012 schrieb Darac Marjal:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:14:50PM +0800, lina wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
> >
> > from one server to another server.
> >
> > I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
> > but in my situations rsync has
Am Mittwoch, 8. August 2012 schrieb Johannes Wiedersich:
> On 08/08/12 09:14, lina wrote:
> > It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
> >
> > from one server to another server.
> >
> > I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
> > but in my situations rsync has elapsed for 1 hour, I guess t
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM, lina wrote:
>
> On 9 Aug, 2012, at 23:05, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:00:18PM +0800, lina wrote:
>>> I don't know the reliable of the connection between the two servers, I
>>> guess it's okay.
>>>
>>> But from my side, the wireless is not
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:00:12AM +0800, lina wrote:
>
> I don't know how to check the signal strength except seeing the icon of the
> network manager.
Sorry, I don't use "network manager", but you could check by going
inside to test. The reason the transfer speeds could be slow, is because
o
On 9 Aug, 2012, at 23:05, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:00:18PM +0800, lina wrote:
>> I don't know the reliable of the connection between the two servers, I
>> guess it's okay.
>>
>> But from my side, the wireless is not stable.
>> I don't know how to let it stable. I mean
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:00:18PM +0800, lina wrote:
> I don't know the reliable of the connection between the two servers, I
> guess it's okay.
>
> But from my side, the wireless is not stable.
> I don't know how to let it stable. I mean, not login every 10~15 minutes.
> (btw, Is big wind affect
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:14:50 +0800, lina wrote:
> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>
> from one server to another server.
Are both hosts remote (over Internet) or local (LAN)?
> I checked that rsync is faster than scp, but in my situations rsync has
> elapsed for 1 hour, I guess
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:00:18PM +0800, lina wrote:
>
> BTW, How to set the port for netcat?
> The remote one has the following ports open:
Choose one not from that list above 1024 and make sure any firewalls
between the two computers allow that.
See the following examples:
http://www.screena
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:14:50PM +0800, lina wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>>
>> from one server to another server.
>>
>> I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
>> but in my situations rsync has elapsed
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Johannes Wiedersich
wrote:
> On 08/08/12 09:14, lina wrote:
>> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>>
>> from one server to another server.
>>
>> I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
>> but in my situations rsync has elapsed for 1 hour, I guess the ne
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Johann Spies wrote:
> Hallo Lina,
>
>
>> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>>
>> from one server to another server.
>
> You can also use netcat (man nc - see under examples). It is probably
> the fastest method.
>
> I have used that in the past in combi
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> lina:
>>
>> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>>
>> from one server to another server.
>
> Either use rsync without encryption (= not tunneled over SSH), or pipe
> tar through netcat. The latter does not support resuming.
Thanks
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:14:50PM +0800, lina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>
> from one server to another server.
>
> I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
> but in my situations rsync has elapsed for 1 hour, I guess the network
> is also a problem,
>
> He
On 08/08/12 09:14, lina wrote:
> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>
> from one server to another server.
>
> I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
> but in my situations rsync has elapsed for 1 hour, I guess the network
> is also a problem,
>
> Here I wish to know are there some
I user rsync for everything.
rsync -vaP /location/ user@remote-host:/location/
I've found it best sofar.
-Original Message-
From: Johann Spies [mailto:jsp...@sun.ac.za]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:59 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: which one is faster?
Hallo Lina,
> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>
> from one server to another server.
You can also use netcat (man nc - see under examples). It is probably
the fastest method.
I have used that in the past in combination with rsync: copy it using
netcat and check the result with
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:14 AM, lina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>
> from one server to another server.
>
> I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
Well, sometimes. Certainly if you have some of the data in both
places and need to sync it, rsync will just do
lina:
>
> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>
> from one server to another server.
Either use rsync without encryption (= not tunneled over SSH), or pipe
tar through netcat. The latter does not support resuming.
If you can tell us a bit more, we might be able to help better. Do you
2012/8/8 lina
> Hi,
>
> It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
>
> from one server to another server.
>
> I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
> but in my situations rsync has elapsed for 1 hour, I guess the network
> is also a problem
>
split (man split) your data into little chunck
Hi,
It's a bit big data to transfer, around 1.1 T,
from one server to another server.
I checked that rsync is faster than scp,
but in my situations rsync has elapsed for 1 hour, I guess the network
is also a problem,
Here I wish to know are there some tools (better default) can use for
fast tra
22 matches
Mail list logo