On Wednesday, September 26 2001 11:27 am, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:44:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I tried to use scp, but I guess it was caching the info somewhere because
> > I was getting the same transfer speeds as from HDs.
>
> That's a good possibility.
Viktor Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, blowfish is a nice speed improvement. Any idea, why
> it' not the default?
I would assume it has something to do with 3des being older. In ssh
man-pages it is said, that blowfish _appear_ very secure. I think
BSD-folks are just being con
Samuli Suonpaa wrote:
> > Stop! Could the file /var/www/testi.100M be in the OS cache during
> > the second try?
>
> It was, but it was there the first time also, I deliberately ran both
> these commands a couple of times and only reported the last attempt.
> (Should have mentioned that, thoug
Viktor Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Samuli Suonpaa wrote:
>> $ time scp -c 3des -q oberon:/var/www/testi.100M /dev/zero
>>
>> real 1m28.652s
>> user 0m0.050s
>> sys 0m0.450s
>> $ time scp -c blowfish -q oberon:/var/www/testi.100M /dev/zero
>>
>> real 0m27.329s
>> user 0m0.070s
>> sys
Samuli Suonpaa wrote:
> $ time scp -c 3des -q oberon:/var/www/testi.100M /dev/zero
>
> real 1m28.652s
> user 0m0.050s
> sys 0m0.450s
> $ time scp -c blowfish -q oberon:/var/www/testi.100M /dev/zero
>
> real 0m27.329s
> user 0m0.070s
> sys 0m0.390s
>
> Nice difference, right?
Stop! Co
Viktor Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that the problem lies with scp. On my local network I
> experience transfer rates of less than 200kB/s with scp because the
> server is an old Pentium 133 with not enough horse power. With
> plain old rcp I get up to 6MB/s on a 100MB (half d
> I suspect that the problem lies with scp. On my local network I
> experience transfer rates of less than 200kB/s with scp because the
> server is an old Pentium 133 with not enough horse power. With plain
> old rcp I get up to 6MB/s on a 100MB (half duplex?) link.
try the -c blowfish option.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 07:50:32PM +0200, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
> I suspect that the problem lies with scp. On my local network I
> experience transfer rates of less than 200kB/s with scp because the
> server is an old Pentium 133 with not enough horse power.
Well, yes... scp is an encrypted p
David Roundy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:44:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I tried to use scp, but I guess it was caching the info somewhere because
> > I was getting the same transfer speeds as from HDs.
>
> Wouldn't this be because hard drives are fast and the network is s
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:44:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I tried to use scp, but I guess it was caching the info somewhere because I
> was getting the same transfer speeds as from HDs.
That's a good possibility. Your test could easily be corrupted on
either side - the send-from-disk
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:44:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I set up my 2 computers with ramfs and put some files in those dirs.
> Now, I wanted to test my networking to see how fast it would work with
> files sitting in RAM. This way I could tell the capabilities of my
> network and it
11 matches
Mail list logo
