On Mar 28 19:43, Steven Hartland wrote:
> From: "Corinna Vinschen"
> >- The worst of all is ssh itself. When reading blocks from the network,
> > it uses an 8K buffer. Whatever you try with setting different socket
> > buffer sizes or disabling the Nagle algorithm, nothing has any
> > interesting
- Original Message -
From: "Corinna Vinschen"
Yeah, I'm just slightly annoyed about the "Cygwin is slow" routine on
this mailing list.
I would not say Cygwin is not slow persay but there issues in certain
areas which have issues. This is what I was trying to highlight and as
such hopefu
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 28 09:57, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > All of the above will probably need to be suggested to the OpenSSH team
> > (preferably in the form of patches). Volunteers welcome (nudge-nudge,
> > wink-wink, Steve). :-)
>
> You don't seriously believe th
On Mar 28 17:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 28 09:57, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > All of the above will probably need to be suggested to the OpenSSH team
> > (preferably in the form of patches). Volunteers welcome (nudge-nudge,
> > wink-wink, Steve). :-)
>
> You don't seriously believe that s
On Mar 28 09:57, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> All of the above will probably need to be suggested to the OpenSSH team
> (preferably in the form of patches). Volunteers welcome (nudge-nudge,
> wink-wink, Steve). :-)
You don't seriously believe that stuff like that hasn't been already
suggested a couple
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > It turns out that three factors limit the speed on the client side:
> >
> > - The worst of all is ssh itself. When reading blocks from the network,
> > it uses an 8K buffer. Whatever you try with se
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> It turns out that three factors limit the speed on the client side:
>
> - The worst of all is ssh itself. When reading blocks from the network,
> it uses an 8K buffer. Whatever you try with setting different socket
> buffer sizes or disabling th
On Mar 28 11:43, Steven Hartland wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Corinna Vinschen"
> >On Mar 27 16:39, Steven Hartland wrote:
> >>I've done quite a bit of digging and not found any real answers
> >>on why cygwin's scp performance is so poor.
> >
> >Cygwin is just emulating POSIX by
- Original Message -
From: "Corinna Vinschen"
On Mar 27 16:39, Steven Hartland wrote:
I've done quite a bit of digging and not found any real answers
on why cygwin's scp performance is so poor.
Cygwin is just emulating POSIX by calling Windows functions. It's not
an operating system
On Mar 27 16:39, Steven Hartland wrote:
> I've done quite a bit of digging and not found any real answers
> on why cygwin's scp performance is so poor.
Cygwin is just emulating POSIX by calling Windows functions. It's not
an operating system which runs natively on the machine, so what do
you expe
Interesting idea that I just tried setting high prio on the command line
version and it does benefit obtaining 6.0MB/s but not quite matching
the 6.2MB/s of the daemonised version.
Note: Using realtime prio drops the rate back to 4.3MB/s
Oh just tried using above normal and that hits 6.2MB/s so t
Steven Hartland wrote:
> Also very interesting is when running sshd from the command line with
> /usr/sbin/sshd -D vs running it via cygrunsvr I get:
> * cmdline = 192MB 4.4MB/s 00:44
> * cygrunsvr = 192MB 6.4MB/s 00:30
> * cmdline without -D = 192MB 6.4MB/s 00:30
>
> I tried running:
Also very interesting is when running sshd from the command line with
/usr/sbin/sshd -D vs running it via cygrunsvr I get:
* cmdline = 192MB 4.4MB/s 00:44
* cygrunsvr = 192MB 6.4MB/s 00:30
* cmdline without -D = 192MB 6.4MB/s 00:30
I tried running:
/usr/sbin/sshd -D 2>&1 > /dev/null b
- Original Message -
From: "Pedro Inacio"
I'm starting to think that openssl have some performance issues on
cygwin.
my fixed non-blocking echo_server.c with openssl is too slow when
compared with the same code compiled on Linux.
is something like 40ms on Linux to 1040ms on Cygwin
I'm starting to think that openssl have some performance issues on
cygwin.
my fixed non-blocking echo_server.c with openssl is too slow when
compared with the same code compiled on Linux.
is something like 40ms on Linux to 1040ms on Cygwin.
On 2006/03/27, at 23:32, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Pedro Inacio"
I've initiated the post "select() too slow".
The example I've done was a non-blocking tcp echo_server.c and how
slow it was on linux compared with cygwin.
In fact after activation oh tcp_nodelay option the times were similar.
Meanwhile I've do
Hello,
I've initiated the post "select() too slow".
The example I've done was a non-blocking tcp echo_server.c and how
slow it was on linux compared with cygwin.
In fact after activation oh tcp_nodelay option the times were similar.
Meanwhile I've done another test, I've added ssl on top of t
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Korn"
On 27 March 2006 16:39, Steven Hartland wrote:
I've done quite a bit of digging and not found any real answers
on why cygwin's scp performance is so poor.
See the thread about "select() too slow" last week for an explanation of the
Nagle algor
On 27 March 2006 16:39, Steven Hartland wrote:
> I've done quite a bit of digging and not found any real answers
> on why cygwin's scp performance is so poor.
See the thread about "select() too slow" last week for an explanation of the
Nagle algorithm, how windoze's implementation of it appears
19 matches
Mail list logo
