X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Cary Jamison" Subject: Re: How to improve scp speed? Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:40:47 -0700 Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <61f6f4390511281238o1e512ef8i14647828fcf32c AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <438D6EE0 DOT 1000406 AT gmx DOT de> <438E30CB DOT 4327D914 AT dessent DOT net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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:438E30CB DOT 4327D914 AT dessent DOT net, Brian Dessent typed: > 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. Ok, I probably am. But, you wouldn't expect the buffer tuning to make such a big difference, either, since a fast processor can surely move data around in memory several times faster than it can move it over the net. All these things add up, though.... 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/