New SCP? was Re: file name handling "bug" in scp?

Chris Rapier rapier at
Fri Jul 29 02:09:56 EST 2005

Its not a matter of what you call the application but what the 
application can do. SFTP is still lacking critial features that would 
enhance its overall usefullness. On a functional level the main 
difference between SFTP and SCP seems to be the UI. For example, as far 
as I can tell (using xplot to look at the time sequence graphs) it still 
enters slow start for every file that is transfered with an mget. Thats 
a huge performance hit. I can't but help think that there is a viable 
way around that.

What I was hoping to do was to start a discussion on what sort of 
features people would like to see. I'm not, in anyway, saying that SFTP 
or SCP or any of the work OpenSSH has done is less than stellar. I'm 
only trying to think about where it can go from here.

Damien Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Chris Rapier wrote:
>>I guess this leads to the question: While SCP has always in the past
>>fallen back to acting like cp because that is what rcp did, is this
>>still necessary? I'm not, in anyway, suggesting that scp be
>>fundamentally changed though. I'm just curious is there might be a place
>>for something like 'scp2' (or 'scp+' or 'thatcrazynewwackytypeofscp').
>>I'm thinking of something that has similar functionality to scp but has
>>enhanced functionality (parallel data streams, having a data and a
>>control channel to handle multiple files more gracefully, etc etc etc).
>>Any thoughts on this?
> It is called sftp, but it needs more work to be a complete scp 
> replacement. Starting with recursive operations.
> -d
> _______________________________________________
> openssh-unix-dev mailing list
> openssh-unix-dev at

More information about the openssh-unix-dev mailing list