In article <a817bcca-2a4e-3808-2b48-9f1ea9cbe7d0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >On 11/13/20 1:01 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> rsync is not nearly as widely supported as FTP. And while rsync works >>> okay for mirroring, I've never seen it used for remote file access. >> This makes no sense. What computers do you believe that people use in >> 2020 that support FTP but not rsync? And if that were true, why do we >> see orders of magnitude more rsync traffic than FTP? > >1. rsync is not good for file access I suppose there is a definition of file access for which that might still be true. I use rsync every night to mirror the rfc and i-d archives on my laptop. Works great. It is not 1995 any more and nobody sensible mounts a remote directory for one at a time retrieval of small files over a WAN. >2. traffic volume is not an indicator of importance. At some point of course it is. We're talking about 1/5000th of the traffic here, with strong hints that a lot of that trickle could easily switch to other paths. R's, John
