On 5/3/19 2:13 PM, Don Poitras wrote:
Well, no one told me till today. :)
Better late than never?
Seriously, what's wrong with scp?
10 hack
20 kludge
30 goto 10
My understanding is that scp uses a terminal connection between scp on
one end talking to scp as a remote command on the other end, through the
same type of connection that you would ssh through. Control and data
are mixed. I'm not confident that it's true 8-bit clean. (Think escape
sequence.)
Conversely sftp actually establishes multiple separate channels in the
ssh connection. Control and data are independent. The data is 8-bit clean.
I've found that scp works > 95% of the time for me. But there are
exceptionally rare (for me) cases where I have to use sftp.
The problem with sftp is that it's interactive.
Yes, sftp is meant to be a drop in replacement for interactive ftp.
It's also possible to pull / get files via sftp non-interactively.
sftp <server>:<remote file> <local file>
I don't remember the syntax to push / put files remotely at the moment.
But I'd be shocked if there wasn't a way to do it.
I can write scripts where I call scp over and over with a syntax that
is simple and intuitive.
Yep.
sftp can also pull / get files the same way.
Everywhere _but_ z/OS, it is the most useful way I know to transfer files.
I use scp extensively. I just do so knowing that there are corner cases
that can bite.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
