+Alan Hicks+ wrote:

> Sylvain's example is superior for moving reletively small amounts of
> data because you do not have to login to the remote system, or worry
> about setting up a netcat service. However, the use of ssh adds a lot
> of encryption overhead in both CPU time and packet size, making this a
> less efficient way for moving data on the order of several hundred
> megabytes and higher across a LAN.

That hasn't been a problem, in practice, either on my relatively slow
home network, or on 100Mb switched network at work. My home systems
even include some old 486s with relatively small amounts of memory.
What I've shown is what I use to move large amounts of data, even across
wireless (802.11b) and DSL links. The encryption overhead, in my opinion,
is just a matter of course. If I want to move "relatively small amounts
of data", I just use scp.

I wouldn't want to move gigabytes of a system's backup data (Windows or
otherwise), over an unencrypted link created with netcat, not even on
my quite well protected home network, unless the system in question
contained exactly 0 bytes of sensitive information. I've been using Ssh
for so many years, both for interactive access, and for tunnelling
traffic and pipes that I don't even notice the overhead.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------