SFTP client - I have some specs that I need

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by Syndacate, Oct 19, 2008.

  1. Syndacate macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    #1
    Hey,

    I'm trying to find an SFTP client for OS X. In Windows I use WinSCP, in Linux I use gftp...in mac I'm kind of screwed and need help.

    There's two things I need in said SFTP program, resumable transfers, and normal speeds.

    The problem is this:
    Cyberduck seems to be one of the big ones, only problem with it is when I transfer data inside my own dorm I only get 800KB/s, when I use terminal I get 5-6MB/s - obviously Cyberduck transfers slower for some reason.

    I have no quims about using terminal, but terminal can't resume transfers, which leads me to the next one:
    Fugufish seems to be the other big one, I really like it because it has the old Nortan Commander style which I like and it transfers as fast as terminal will (maybe because from what I've read fugufish is only a frontend for the terminal), so like the terminal, or if that's not true, for some other reason, fugufish cannot resume transfers.

    I love fugufish, but when I got to transfer 30GB worth of stuff at 60KB/s from certain places, I expect connection interrupts, computer restarts, power outages, etc., plus I only run transfers at night.

    So any help on an alternative program? Or am I kinda screwed?

    Requirements:
    - Terminal or near terminal speeds
    - Resumable Transfers
     
  2. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #2
    too lazy to read all that. but, for the speed issue, are you sure terminal isn't measuring in bits and cyberduck in bytes... its a 1:8 ratio. 8 bits to 1 byte. you mentioned 5-6mb/s so Im thinking maybe megabites, and cyberduck is measuring in bytes...
     
  3. Cantello macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    Lüneburg
    #3
    I get acceptable speed with Cyberduck (2-3MiB/s), but as an alternative, you could try Transmit (http://www.panic.com/transmit/).

    Have never tried the terminal, though, so I cannot say for sure that Cyberduck's speed is acceptable...
     
  4. mathcolo macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #4
    Yeah, I would recommend Cyberduck too. The problem with Transmit is that it costs $.
     
  5. jc1350 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #5
  6. Syndacate thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    #6
    @jc1350:
    Wow, it'd just be CRAZY if I mentioned that program in my post..and then explained why I can't use it...

    I mean ****, it's not like I stated everything in my original post that you've posted, already, or anything like that...

    @Cantello: I would try transmit, but if what mathcolo said is true and it does cost money, it's not even worth looking at.

    @SnowLeopard2008: What you say makes sense, but unless they noted Bytes and bits wrong, that is not the problem. I just tested it locally, terminal got 5.7MB/s at approx 13min ETA, cyber duck got 900KB/s with an estimated 40min ETA. So it's definitely not that.

    @all
    I'd be fine with cyberduck if it wasn't averaging 1/4x the speed of terminal.

    Anybody else have any pearls of Wisdom?

    Seeing as how nobody bothered reading the orig. post, for the "specs" (important) part, I'll try to summarize it here: The problem with fugu is that it doesn't implement resuming transfers, which is kind of a problem with what I need it for. Though I think they had to leave it out since it's only a front-end and they didn't bother implementing it on terminal as well...

    Cyberduck runs, but it runs at 1/4 the speed. 1MB/s accross a local network is incredibly pathetic. Though the source where this has to go/come from isn't on a local network, so the speeds are even worse.

    EDIT:
    Aren't you all supposed to be die-hard mac fans? Maybe some extra incentive would include: Linux can do it fine with gFTP, Windows can do it fine with WinSCP, Mac is the only one that's failing at this.
     
  7. MacForMeOneDay macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    #7
    I use FileZilla. Not sure if it does resume, but the price is right. Plus I can use it on all platforms, so its familiar to me.
    The option to resume transfers is at least is listed.
    http://filezilla-project.org/
     
  8. Syndacate thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    #8
    Actually, right after I wrote that, I decided to try transmit as a last ditch effort. So I "bought" the latest version, and low and behold, it works like a charm. It transferred across my local network at 5.5MB/s, and resumes transfers just fine. Also, it has a commander-type interface (opposed to cyber-duck's which is more like explorer-type)

    Transmit is where it's at, even though I am all for OSS and do not like them wanting to charge for programs.

    End result:
    Terminal - Quick transfers, can't resume
    Fugu - Quick transfers, can't resume, as is a gui front end for the terminal, it fails in the same places. Nice interface though.
    CyberDuck - Slow ass transfers (approximately 1/5-1/6 what terminal or fugu will give you), but can resume transfers.
    Transmit - Quick transfers (same as terminal), resumable transfers, costs money

    Fugu is faster for quick transfers, that you need to do quickly, as you can throw up a connection damn near instantly, transmit takes a bit longer (only a bit), but is great if you have long transfers.

    @MacForMeOneDay:
    I hate filezilla with a passion, lol. I don't think it resumes transfers, but then again, I stay as far away from it as humanly possible. Though I didn't even know they had a mac version, thanks for the input though =).

    Thank you, Cantello, for this suggestion of transmit, it has everything I need and a nice GUI (similar to fugu, commander style) to boot. Yes, it costs money, so you'll have to weigh out which ones are worth it. I suppose if you have a lot of time cyberduck is fine.

    EDIT:
    Out of the first 4 replies, the second reply was the only one who seemed to have read the original post. You guys might want to read the OP that to more efficiently help the person in question. I don't do mac support (obviously), but I do for other systems (mostly linux based), and I can tell you straight up it's important to completely understand what the OP is asking about, and usually you need to read the initial question to post a response...although that's just my advice as somebody who aids others more. Thank you those who did and posted suggestions.
     
  9. prostuff1 macrumors 65816

    prostuff1

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Location:
    Don't step into the kawoosh...
    #9
    I am not sure what school your going to but I know here at OSU we get an FTP client free as a student. The current and future versions of Fetch are all paid for as long as we are a student. And the version you have when you graduate will keep working, just won't be able to download a new version from the schools website when i graduate.
     
  10. koobcamuk macrumors 68040

    koobcamuk

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    #10
    I either use the finder directly (command k) or I use transmit. FTP is a bugger though (when sending many small files).
     
  11. Cantello macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    Lüneburg
    #11
    Unfortunately the finder does not support SFTP, which is what the OP was looking for,
     
  12. Syndacate thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    #12
    Yeah, using finder/nautilus/explorer works fine for FTP in OS X/Linux/Windows (respectively) - but only for FTP (and samba with windows). For SFTP it's a completely different protocol, it won't operate via finder.

    Yeah, we have Fetch for free here too, because we're students. I forgot what happened with that though, or if it works. I definitely like the commander style interface of fugu and transmit over the explorer/finder type interface of cyberduck or fetch - but I wouldn't base it on that, altogether.

    I'll look into fetch tomorrow or this weekend and see what the deal is, then edit the above post about it with the resultant for future reference of other people...

    I coulda sworn there was a problem with Fetch someplace, though I forgot where. Maybe I just never got around to trying it *shrugs*.
     

Share This Page