On Wednesday 01 March 2006 14:15, Daniel A. wrote: > On 3/1/06, gh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 20 February 2006 13:04, Daniel A. wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I have the same issue here. > > > When I use SFTP (WinSCP) to transfer from my Windows XP SP2 box to my > > > local server, I can only utilize about 1/10'th of the bandwith > > > (100mbit). > > > On the other hand, when I use FTP or SMB to transfer files, I can > > > utilize the maximum bandwith. > > > > > > On both boxes, the "symptoms" are the same: > > > - Lots of available CPU time > > > - No significant disk I/O > > > - Quite a lot of available RAM. > > > > but SFTP (WinSCP) is a crypted transfer (ssh tunnel) > > therefor it must be slower than > > any uncrypted transfer like FTP or samba .... > Yes, but one tenth? I would understand the speed difference if at > least the encryption required either a lot of CPU time or memory > utilization, but the fact is that it doesnt. In fact, my PC is > practically idle while it's transferring files through sftp. > > I believe that fbsd_user (at a1poweruser.com) is correct about the > different buffer size being the cause of this problem. >
i think that the different operating systems (and their programs) cause this minimized transfer with a ssh tunnel because the transfer run from application to ssh to tcp/ip socket on one machine and the other way round on the peer and both sides had to wait for each other (different platforms - different timing) so the time consumption without really doing usefull _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
