X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Cary Jamison" <Cary_Jamison AT Symantec DOT com>
Subject:	Re: How to improve scp speed?
Date:	Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:55:28 -0700
Lines:	23
Message-ID:	<dml03k$6gq$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<61f6f4390511281238o1e512ef8i14647828fcf32c AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <BAY105-F2693514CAA56EEF86ECAC3E9480 AT phx DOT gbl> <dmii0m$s50$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <438D6EE0 DOT 1000406 AT gmx DOT de>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

In news:438D6EE0 DOT 1000406 AT gmx DOT de,
Holger Krull typed:
> The low speed of ssh and scp is not because of the encyption.
> The problem is the 64K limit for the window size in  the protocoll.
> Further information and a patch can be found here:
>
> http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/

I think we all know that encryption is a factor.  The site still states :
   The improvement will also be highly influenced by the capacity of the 
processor to perform the encryption and decryption. Less computational 
expensive ciphers will often provide better throughput than more complex 
ciphers.

And they add a new '-z' switch to get higher throughput without encryption.

But, it is interesting to see how much more throughput they get with their 
buffer tuning.


Cary




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -