Now that I have rsync working, I have now combined it with plink. I use rsync 
to update the server with some large VFP
applications. This is a slow process because of my Internet 'up speed' on the 
development server. Because of this, I
rsync every file that needs to be in any URL to a single folder. Then I use 
plink to copy each file to the URL where
clients and various Medicare contractors and payers will download. Here is the 
plink code.

plink webxxx.webfaction.com -l webfactaccount -pw mypassword -ssh -v -L 
port#:localhost:port# -m copylist.txt

The file: copylist.txt has Linux copy commands like this:

cp /home/webfactaccount/webapps/baseaccount_com/file1.exe         
/home/webfactaccount/webapps/www_domain1_com/path1
cp /home/webfactaccount/webapps/baseaccount_com/file2.exe         
/home/webfactaccount/webapps/www_domain1_com/path2
cp /home/webfactaccount/webapps/baseaccount_com/file1.exe         
/home/webfactaccount/webapps/www_domain2_com/path1
cp /home/webfactaccount/webapps/baseaccount_com/file2.exe         
/home/webfactaccount/webapps/www_domain2_com/path2

This method works in about 15 minutes if 5 or 6 large files change. if I used 
rsync or ftp to update each domain/URL it
would take about 2-3 hours. The reason is that plink can copy from one URL to 
another URL (on the same server) very
fast. I am using webfaction because it was recommended on this list. You can 
have one account with as many different
domains/URLs as you want for a fixed price based on how much total storage you 
use. Hope that is clear.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Malcolm Greene" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [NF] Rsync usage scenario? (creating host keys that work 
underWindows)


Paul,

I'm struggling with the same (Windows) issues Ken is so thank you very
much for having the patience to share your technique.

Any comments you have on the following questions would be greatly
appreciated.

1. In reviewing your instructions, it appears that you have 3 different
client side locations for the Windows equivalent of home - it looks like
you have multiple .ssh folders on your client side?

- c:\cygwin\home
- /home/Administrator/.ssh/id_dsa.pub
- c:\cygwin\Administrator\.ssh

2. On the server side, why do you use .ssh/authorized_keys2 vs.
.ssh/authorized_keys (same file without the '2' prefix)? I'm guessing
this has something to do with SSH vs. SSH2? The instructions I've been
reading on the web use the 'authorized_keys' file name.

3. Don't you need to register your server's public key on your client
via something like this or is this an optional step?

cat your-server_dsa.pub >> /home/Administrator/.ssh/known_hosts file

4. Any specific reason for choosing DSA vs. RSA to generate your key?

THANK YOU :)

Malcolm

<snipped>

Ok, the key difference on Windows using Cygwin versus *nix machines is
that there's
no /home directory. /home is underneath whereever cygwin is installed,
usually
c:\cygwin\home. Here's what I did on my Vista machine, in Windows
Terminal, to enable
passwordless logins to my server:

ssh-keygen -t dsa
<press enter through every prompt>
<make a note of the directory where it tells you the key is installed,
for me it was /home/Administrator/.ssh/id_dsa.pub>
c:
cd c:\cygwin\Administrator\.ssh
scp id_dsa.pub [email protected]:
<enter password>
ssh [email protected]
<enter password>
cat id_dsa.pub >> .ssh/authorized_keys2
exit
ssh [email protected]
<no password prompt>

</snipped>

[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1a7c01cb1324$4c00c3a0$7a00a...@w2k3s02
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to