[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: SFTP/SCP much slower than FTP

> > Do a quick test to see if the blowfish algoritm gives 
> higher speed. This
> > takes less cpu power to process than the default one.
> > I usually use that on low-end machines (I don't have a Mac, 
> but I have
> > Amigas, 486's and 133MHz RS/6000's which sometimes need it, and an
> > AmigaOne which kinda doesn't need it (as it's running rather fast at
> > 700MHz :-) )
> > 
> > 
> thanks for the reply,
> after doing this, what sort of xfer speeds do you usualy get 
> on your low-end
> machines?
> i still find it odd that i would get the same transfer speeds 
> using sFTP on
> these two machines: the 8500/250 is nearly 3x faster than the 
> 8100/100!
> any other ideas?
> thanks
> dylan

When it comes to mass data transfer, the bottleneck won't likely be the CPU,
it'll be the NIC.

You want to pump up your throughput? Try changing the default packet size
inside your Intranet.  1500 bytes vs 15,000 byes should speed things up by
more than a few percent.

And then, well, I really want a replacement for RPC, crafted by Debian :)

That would be infinitely faster than even FTP.

(note: SCP is really encrypyted TCP/IP, not an encrypted version of rcp)


This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such.  All information is subject to change without notice.

Reply to: