X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <438E30CB.4327D914@dessent.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:07:55 -0800
From: Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: How to improve scp speed?
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> <dml03k$6gq$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
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

Cary Jamison wrote:

> I think we all know that encryption is a factor.  The site still states :

No, I wouldn't say that we all know that.  I just ran "openssl speed"
and on my very modest Athlon XP 1700 machine and both the aes-128 and
blowfish ciphers clocked in at approximately 60-65 megabytes/sec
throughput.  That's about 50 times faster than the theoretical maximum
throughput of 10Base-T ethernet.  Even this modest system can encrypt 5
times faster than the absolute maximum rate of 100 megabit ethernet.

I think you are vastly overestimating the CPU requirement of
encryption.  And it is also why the original poster should not waste his
time trying to find a nonexistent, useless, and insecure option to
disable encryption.

Brian

--
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/