scp: Simple is best

Technically speaking, scp is hardly a console application. This definitely falls in the realm of command-line “tool,” no more or less.

But it’s absolutely a godsend, sparing you the effort of setting up server-client network arrangements, if all you want to do is transfer a file or two.

2012-12-26-l3-e7548-scp

In the past (and by that I mean years ago), I always went straight to nfs, mostly because I didn’t (and still don’t) have any Windows machines.

But I don’t bother doing that any more, if I can solve the arrangement with a simple scp command.

It’s hard to overstate the ease of using scp, which usually acts and reacts in the same way as the standard cp command.

And aside from demanding a password, it only requires that the remote machine have sshd working.

I know scp is nothing new, and it would be more surprising to find a system or distro that didn’t offer it, than to rehash it again.

But if you haven’t seen it work, you owe it to yourself to try. 🙂

18 thoughts on “scp: Simple is best

  1. Pingback: Links 5/1/2013: Fedora 18 Delayed; Civil Rights Focus | Techrights

  2. Wyatt

    scp is neat, but I’m personally more inclined to give the nod to rsync simply for how smart it is about getting things done efficiently.

    1. K.Mandla Post author

      I was under the impression rsync couldn’t directly synchronize without some sort of mounted filesystem in place. Will it handle a network address like scp?

      1. Wyatt

        Apologies, “some sort of mounted filesystem in place” in what sense? For years now it’s defaulted to using ssh underneath everything if the source or destination are remote, so I would imagine it behaves exactly like scp in that regard. For non-remote transfers, I believe it goes through a local socket. Or are we having a jargon impedence misamatch?

      2. K.Mandla Post author

        I’m sorry, I misunderstood. I was under the impression rsync couldn’t handle network addresses in its source or destination, but that a remote machine had to be mounted on nfs or something similar before it could connect. I see what you mean now. Thanks! 🙂

  3. Pingback: woof: The simple single file server | Inconsolation

  4. Pingback: ncp: Possibly the easiest yet | Inconsolation

  5. Anonymous Penguin

    Fun fact, If you have a {passphrase,password}-less ssh setup (with keys, of course), you can use for remote filename/path completion.

  6. Pingback: pssh: Still more parallelized tools | Inconsolation

  7. Pingback: cpubars: More processors equals more fun | Inconsolation

  8. Pingback: cpubars: More processors equals more fun | Linux Admins

  9. Pingback: bitpocket: Your in-house drop box | Inconsolation

  10. Pingback: sshrc: Piggyback your rc across ssh | Inconsolation

  11. Pingback: sshrc: Piggyback your rc across ssh | Linux Admins

  12. Pingback: Bonus: K.Mandla’s order of battle | Inconsolation

  13. Pingback: ssh-chat: And a question for which I have no answer | Inconsolation

  14. Pingback: ssh-chat: And a question for which I have no answer | Linux Admins

Comments are closed.