X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-Authenticated: #1594397 Message-ID: <005a01c64ad6$2fb18e20$39678350@HAUPTPC> From: "Max Stein" To: References: <20060318210347 DOT 8FB7A2680 AT dot DOT warande DOT net> Subject: Re: sshd and scp/sftp: slow throughput on windows machines Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:52:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 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 > 1. Is it possible to increase the bandwith by having the client aggregate > multiple sessions through a single pipe? Could you please give me some advice how this can be achieved? I am not an SSH guru yet. > 2. It would seem that PPTP connections can be much faster. E.g. a FreeBSD > MPD running on a 400 Mhz Pentium II can sustain a 50 Mbit/s datastream at > a > CPU usage of 25%. > W2k and XP have easy to configure PPTP clients. > (See also W2003 RAS.) Why should a point to point tunnel improve the performance? Using Linux on the client and server machines I achieved a throughput of 10.8 MB/s whereas the theoretical maximum on a 100 MBit/s ethernet network would be 12.5 MB/s. There must be another way. Why is the Linux implementation of SSH able to provide a much better throughput for scp/sftp than cygwin's implementation running on the same hardware? It is not a problem of the Windows operating system because usual FTP tranfer yields simalar fast throughput of 10-11 MB/s like SSH running on Linux. Max Stein -- 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/