hmm, on Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 04:04:52PM -0500, Nick Holland said that
> I find that interesting, too.
> I was just explaining to my GF's six-year-old niece yesterday that you
> shouldn't believe everything someone says.
hello Nick, thanks for the tip :)
you surely realize you are 'someone' as well? ;-)))
(just to poke you a bit, i certainly don't believe everything anyone says)
> Been doing some interesting tests recently...
> scp'ing large (100M+ files) from a Celron 566 to a PIII-750 went at
> about 4MB/s, using fxp cards on both sides. Somewhat less than half
> wire speed. Room for improvement, certainly, but not three times. And
> that's on two-generation old hardware! (and several switches, a router,
> and a firewall between them)
yes, i was expecting someone coming up with the hardware side,
esp. the NIC's. i do not doubt these facts, crappy NIC's have
crappy throughputs.
but.
i normally get 2.5-3MB/s on my lan scp-ing, where the router is a
cpu0: Intel Celeron ("GenuineIntel" 686-class, 128KB L2 cache) 375 MHz
but on the same box 6-7MB/s copying thru samba. ftp the same.
yuck. i enabled it just to make some tests. (i dont even dare
to use the word benchmark: it is not, just some silly end-user tests).
so i don't believe all is hardware, certainly the cards can do
better.
here is the thing: as i said before, noone excepts the same of
scp as of samba or ftp. i write these mails simply because
i don't know what to expect. what could be a normal transfer
rate for my machine? is it my processor that can't do more?
if yes, wouldn't it make sense after all making a cipher=none
option for the data part? ssh is _the_ standard, and it openly
aims to replace ftp..... will we have to turn on ftp just to
transfer (3x as fast) some big files which are not confident
and turn it off again after?
also, what do other people say, could someone test with high
end machines where CPU is not an issue? where does ssh top out?
and if it was only a CPU issue, the HPN-SSH couldn't make the
claims they make. even if they are not true in all cases ;)
what about tunnels? maybe around rsync? what's the transfer
rate there? is it the same as scp? or some other tunneling.
could anybody comment on this?
> > i think it would be very nice to have a performance page on the openssh
> > site describing what should be expected, what is "normal" and the
> > intended performance of ssh to clear up possible misunderstandings.
> > (like mine here)
>
> too many variables.
true. i did not think this over.
but the numbers don't have to be absolute, more like informative...
> Oh, and OpenSSH is very multi-platform...again, more variables.
well, isn't ftp? i know the RNG of a particular system plays
a big role, but this is something which could be tested by
cipher=none ;-)
-f
--
name a psychological rock group? pink freud!
