X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=FxuHr6cpPsf9QiiihPfSjKirgcg8up2jMPJ8/cW2Sbu kQllt3bWR88d767/b9NSQdANc46X9l48/n/xQyqeID+IhD1HIUZi9Ig5yxPAJol4 0QP508EoZaU1thYQ/uu9wju+0Sm32RE7PqpTMi6SHDlh9nrYh5T1z789ZHI7oCy0 = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=bi/6gRlMyKFBl8uwe27Hs1eZsAk=; b=hz7irfS6j6lnWf0B9 1Xp+GEdPx+L28ERJw6ni8Tx3/HCvz9rLEqkvZJKWCAUJ8KquW6MhbzoMXaGoJxwH gmMZHY/Oy6pHIlX0H5rztYMG4UVhPCwwzBELGizxmpsDkYf4wB1Dk8ohXb+hkCGc pp7PnDNfyYQQpk58omwHhj7Cs0= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=sftp, 2100, transfer X-HELO: Ishtar.sc.tlinx.org Message-ID: <5ACAA0E6.5040504@tlinx.org> Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2018 16:08:22 -0700 From: L A Walsh User-Agent: Thunderbird MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Network Performance? References: <5AB5825C DOT 8060309 AT tlinx DOT org> <5AB6E770 DOT 8020603 AT tlinx DOT org> <8794ec10-dcee-4ad6-bfe6-3c8c108ca5f6 AT gmail DOT com> In-Reply-To: <8794ec10-dcee-4ad6-bfe6-3c8c108ca5f6@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Jordan Geoghegan wrote: > Thanks for the info. Would you be able to test file performance over the > network? If you could just try copying a ~1GB file or what have you via > sftp or rsync with actual writes to disk, I would be very interested to > see how the numbers change. --- Here is scp and rsync, using a tar, and a 1g file filled with zeros. Note, my env RSYNC_RSH=ssh > time scp default-nlaw.tar.7z ishtar:/tmp default-nlaw.tar.7z 100% 62MB 83.1MB/s 00:00 0.91sec 0.04usr 0.01sys (6.65% cpu) > ssh ishtar rm /tmp/default-nlaw.tar.7z > time rsync -v default-nlaw.tar.7z ishtar:/tmp/ default-nlaw.tar.7z sent 64,588,267 bytes received 35 bytes 43,058,868.00 bytes/sec total size is 64,572,413 speedup is 1.00 0.73sec 0.37usr 0.17sys (74.32% cpu) time scp /tmp/1g ishtar:/tmp/ 1g 100% 1014MB 72.3MB/s 00:14 15.00sec 0.04usr 0.07sys (0.81% cpu) > time rsync -v /tmp/1g ishtar:/tmp/ 1g sent 1,063,515,721 bytes received 35 bytes 125,119,500.71 bytes/sec total size is 1,063,256,064 speedup is 1.00 7.57sec 5.95usr 3.40sys (123.54% cpu) > uname -a CYGWIN_NT-6.1 Athenae 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:16 x86_64 Cygwin I generally don't use them to transfer files over a closed subnet as the performance is sub-optimal. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple