[Transfer Files Between Linux Hosts Using Peer-to-Peer Network
Gildo Santiago
As a Linux user, you may often find yourself needing to transfer files between different hosts on your network. While there are several ways to do this, the Distributed Copy (DCP) protocol is a peer-to-peer method that offers a convenient and efficient solution.
Transfer Files Between Linux Hosts Using Peer-to-Peer Network
Download File ✏ https://t.co/8nVnIktTDL
In this blog post, we will explore DCP in more detail, including how to install and use it to transfer files between Linux hosts. We will also discuss some of the security considerations when using DCP, and how to use SSH to ensure secure file transfers.
DCP is a protocol that enables peer-to-peer file transfers between Linux hosts. Unlike other file transfer protocols such as FTP or SFTP, DCP does not rely on a central server to facilitate transfers. Instead, it allows hosts to transfer files directly to each other over a network.
DCP is built on top of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), which is a connectionless protocol that does not require a dedicated connection between hosts. Instead, UDP packets are sent and received independently of each other, making it a lightweight and efficient protocol for transferring files.
To transfer a file using DCP, we first need to specify the source and destination hosts. In DCP, the source host is the host that has the file that we want to transfer, and the destination host is the host that we want to transfer the file to.
While DCP is a convenient and efficient way to transfer files between Linux hosts, it is important to consider security implications when using it. Because DCP transfers files over UDP, there is no built-in encryption or authentication mechanism. This means that files transferred using DCP can potentially be intercepted or tampered with by unauthorized parties.
To mitigate these risks, it is recommended to use DCP in conjunction with other security measures such as encryption and authentication. For example, you can use SSH to encrypt the DCP traffic and authenticate the hosts involved in the transfer.
To do this, you would first need to set up SSH between the source and destination hosts. Once SSH is set up, you can use the -o option in the DCP command to specify the SSH options to use for the transfer.
In this command, -o specifies the SSH options to use for the transfer. The -e none option disables SSH encryption, since DCP already provides encryption. The -o StrictHostKeyChecking=no option disables strict host key checking, which can be useful when connecting to a host for the first time.
While DCP is a powerful tool for transferring files between Linux hosts, it can sometimes encounter issues during the transfer process. In this section, we will discuss some of the common problems that you might encounter while using DCP, as well as some troubleshooting tips for addressing these issues.
DCP is a convenient and efficient way to transfer files between Linux hosts over a peer-to-peer network. It is built on top of the UDP protocol, which makes it lightweight and efficient, and it does not rely on a central server to facilitate transfers.
To use DCP, you need to install it on both the source and destination hosts. Once installed, you can transfer files by specifying the source and destination hosts, as well as any additional options such as the transfer speed limit or the number of parallel streams.
While DCP is a useful tool, it is important to consider security implications when using it. By using SSH to encrypt and authenticate the DCP traffic, you can ensure that your file transfers are secure and protected against interception or tampering.
This Is USB-to-USB data transfer between two Linux OSes possible? question and the answer is USB 2.0 which is simply outdated. As USB 3.0 is much faster than simple Gigabit Ethernet and I want to connect a laptop and a desktop both with SSDs, this would be a great solution. If it's possible.
While this doesn't seem to be availabe, there are dual Gigabit Ethernet adapters (make sure to get a real dual NIC and not a NIC + switch) and that's 2GBit. Disappointing. Then it's down to bonding the two together. In my case, the desktop have spare PCI Express x1 ports so I will get a dual NIC card instead of converting USB 3.0 there. For the laptop, USB 3.0 expresscard (they make ones with practically disappearing ports) and an adapter seems to be the easiest.
And since we are bonding, the laptop and the desktop both have gigabit Ethernet already so I can reach 3gbit/s theoretically which is quite good for syncing two machines which are limited by SATA speeds.
The xHCI spec describes a debug port to connect two hosts together, but a debug port is optional and almost none of the xHCI hosts currently on the market actually have them. Also, as Alan said, there isn't any Linux software to support it.
I can't find anything newer to contradict this, so looks like it's a not the way to go. I would bet that even if it did work, the fact that it uses a debug port is going to slow things down considerably. Plus some systems only designate a single USB connector as debug-enabled, so not only would this male-to-male cable only work on certain machines, but only on one USB port on those machines as well!
I did find information on a Prolific PL2701 IC that can bridge two USB3 hosts, in a similar way to the older USB2 bridge cables. It says it supports RNDIS (network emulation), mass storage, and some other protocols. So looks like USB3 doesn't alleviate the need for a special bridge cable to connect two PCs.
No; it is not possible. USB is a master/slave ( host/device ) protocol. You can only connect devices to a host, and a host can only be connected to devices. The USB On The Go addition allows for some gadgets ( limited to cell phones and tablets ) to act as one, or the other, depending on what it is connected to, but desktop PCs are host only and so can not be connected to each other.
I have Computer Networking in my course work this semester. Yesterday, I learned about P2P networking. To learn more, I searched the internet and found this article online, published by The Ohio State University.
What I mean by the last question is, for a complete naive user, who doesn't know how to check MD5 hashes, which one will be more secure? P2P where anyone can share files, or dedicated servers that are resilient but not immune to hacking.
There is a lot to unpack here. With regard to the article that you referenced - it seems to be focused on p2p file sharing networks (note it references Napster, Kazaa, etc. in the first sentence). Yes, it is true that files downloaded through these networks could very well be malicious. But, the same is true when you download a file through any network, without taking precautions.
This is why the concept of integrity is so important. If I trust Sam, and Sam tells me, "you can download The Beatles' White Album from ornvyr's server, at , and the SHA256 hash of the file that you download should be 06c0919670570fdce1a66207059c98d7554e4b924dcdc0a7979cfd271da05acf" - then I can safely download the file from your server, even if I don't trust you or your server, as long as I verify that the hash of the file that I downloaded matches what Sam told me it should be, before I open or execute the file. And, this applies regardless of what type of network the file is transferred through (e.g. p2p, client-server, etc). The same type of integrity verification can be done using a digital signature instead of a hash - i.e. if Sam signs the file using his private key, and I have Sam's public key, then I can verify Sam's signature on the file using his public key after I download it from your server.
With regard to blockchain technology - yes, it is true that blockchain technology relies on p2p networks. But, these networks are not used for file sharing (like Napster, etc. were) - they are used to transfer blocks of data which represent transactions. The data must follow a prescribed format, and there is built-in integrity checking based on a 'difficulty requirement' (see _in_Mining for more info) that enables each node to verify that the data it received from another node is true and correct. If a rogue node tries to send bogus data to other nodes, it will immediately be detected by the other nodes, and the other nodes will soon block the rogue node.
For some background and a discussion about other (GUI) SFTP clients, see the "Network delay/latency" section of my answer to Why is FileZilla SFTP file transfer max capped at 1.3MiB/sec instead of saturating available bandwidth? rsync and WinSCP are even slower.
SCP and the underlying SSH2 protocol implementation in OpenSSH is network performance limited by statically defined internal flow control buffers. These buffers often end up acting as a bottleneck for network throughput of SCP, especially on long and high bandwith network links. Modifying the ssh code to allow the buffers to be defined at run time eliminates this bottleneck. We have created a patch that will remove the bottlenecks in OpenSSH and is fully interoperable with other servers and clients. In addition HPN clients will be able to download faster from non HPN servers, and HPN servers will be able to receive uploads faster from non HPN clients.
It rather sounds as though the connection might be rate limited at some point along its path (or rather, that seems to me the simplest explanation for your 50kB/s per connection, but multiple such connections being possible), although it might not be a bad idea to make sure the disks on either side aren't a factor.
You could also run a quick pcap to see if there are any 'obvious' issues (such as a large number of retransmits) - but unless you had some confidence you would be able to address this, I would probably just see if enabling compression would help.
Network tuning on each end is a much bigger topic and would require a lot of back and forth, pushing the topic outside of the scope of ServerFault. For individual connections, the compression mentioned by iwaseatenbyagrue may help either way. This assumes the remote end allows compression.
795a8134c1