ftp is probably a good choice.
Samba works too, but I have been told, and have found that it's
relatively inefficient--lower throughput that ftp.
In scripts running from NT 4 or 5 I've noticed that MS shares tend to
drop after a period of inactivity. While this is fine, they don't get
reconnecte
Additionally you could use smbclient. This allows batch transfers as well and
you
wouldn't have to run an FTP server on the target machine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hiya
>
> what would be the best way to routinely (ie. daily) transfer 500MB worth of
> image files from a linux system to a Windo
On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 03:52:00PM +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> what would be the best way to routinely (ie. daily) transfer 500MB worth of
> image files from a linux system to a Windows 2000 or NT?
This reminds me of an old joke:
Customer: "What's the fastest way to move 500 megabyt
> "kmself" == kmself writes:
kmself> FTP is an old reliable.
Just make sure you transfer files in "binary" mode, and not "ascii" ;-).
(unless, of course, they really are ascii).
kmself> ...but FTP should fit the bill. What other alternatives
kmself> were you considering/are av
On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 03:52:00PM +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hiya
>
> what would be the best way to routinely (ie. daily) transfer 500MB worth of
> image files from a linux system to a Windows 2000 or NT?
>
> would ftp be the best choice or is it prone to bad behaviour if
> unsupervised?
Hiya
what would be the best way to routinely (ie. daily) transfer 500MB worth of
image files from a linux system to a Windows 2000 or NT?
would ftp be the best choice or is it prone to bad behaviour if
unsupervised?
Zane
6 matches
Mail list logo
