Friday, December 10, 1999, 4:04:47 AM, RAVIKANT wrote:
> Now this beat me... I suppose its some networking fundas , which I badly
> lack ... and the only reason I could think up was , the compression over
> eth0 bottlenecks because of the insanely high speeds over eth0 as compared
> to ppp ....
Bingo.
> Thats only a wild guess , and with *no* reasoning...
Nope, you got the reasoning correctly.
> Question : ssh + compression is "faster" than telnet over ppp while telnet
> is "faster" then ssh + compression over eth0 [ local network - *not* with
> ISP ] ... why ?
Simple. It takes time to compress/decompress the data that is going over
the link. Unless it is some insanely highly compressable stuff going through
the link the time it takes to compress/decompress slows it down below what
ethernet speeds provide.
You must also remember that not only is ssh compressing, it is also
encoding. So the same few bytes in telnet does not directly equate to even
close to the same few bites in ssh. IE, ssh with no compression is sending
the raw encrypted text which is more than the raw text telnet sends.
> * DO NOT BOTHER CC-ING THE MAIL REPLY , BECAUSE I AM ALREADY SUBSCRIBED TO
> ALL THE LISTS - ILUGC , LINUX-INDIA , LINUX-NEWBIE , DEBIAN-USER *
Might I suggest having them set reply-tos like all proper lists so people
don't have to munge headers to get to the right list or get bounces from lists
they are not subscribed to?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
