Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:28:03PM +0200, Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [/tmp] # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/x/10MB.dat bs=1M
count=10
10485760 bytes transferred in 4.967248 secs (2110980 bytes/sec)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [/tmp] # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/x/10
On Oct 8, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Oliver Fromme wrote:
I considered submitting the patch for official inclusion,
but the OpenSSH people would reject it because they call
it "insecure", and the FreeBSD people would reject it
because they say the patch should be submitted to the
OpenSSH people. *sigh
Hans Lambermont wrote:
Diomidis Spinellis wrote:
You can also use ports/net/socketpipe. For example you can copy a
directory with:
socketpipe -b -i { tar cf - directory } -l { ssh remotehost } -r
{ tar xvf - }
Just curious, what is the advantage of this approach to the following :
ta
Diomidis Spinellis wrote:
> You can also use ports/net/socketpipe. For example you can copy a
> directory with:
>
> socketpipe -b -i { tar cf - directory } -l { ssh remotehost } -r
> { tar xvf - }
Just curious, what is the advantage of this approach to the following :
tar cf - directory
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> It's really too bad the OpenBSD guys refuse to
> incorporate the HP (high-performance) patches into OpenSSH, and
> being able to say "-c none" would *really* help when it comes to
> benchmarking network I/O via scp
He
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:05:55AM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2006, at 10:54 , Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> >Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>[...]
> >>It's really too bad the OpenBSD guys refuse to
> >>incorporate the HP (high-performance) patches into OpenSSH
On Oct 8, 2006, at 10:54 , Oliver Fromme wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
It's really too bad the OpenBSD guys refuse to
incorporate the HP (high-performance) patches into OpenSSH, and
being able to say "-c none" would *really* help when it comes to
benchmarking network
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> It's really too bad the OpenBSD guys refuse to
> incorporate the HP (high-performance) patches into OpenSSH, and
> being able to say "-c none" would *really* help when it comes to
> benchmarking network I/O via scp
Here's a patch for FreeBS
Jeremy Chadwick wrote this message on Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:08 -0700:
> The problem in that case turned out to be duplex-related. Both
> boxes were auto-negotiating with the Cisco switch correctly, and
> indeed the Cisco labelled them as auto-100/full, but as anyone who
> is familiar with Ciscos
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:28:03PM +0200, Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [/tmp] # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/x/10MB.dat bs=1M
>count=10
>10485760 bytes transferred in 4.967248 secs (2110980 bytes/sec)
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [/tmp] # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/x/100MB.dat bs=1M
>count
Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
Hi list,
despite recent improvements with the nfs code, client performance still
seems to be a problem. I am getting < 2 MB/sec where i would expect at
least 10 MB/sec.
My Setup:
Machine | ANTSRV1| ANTSRV2
==
B
Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
Hi list,
despite recent improvements with the nfs code, client performance still
seems to be a problem. I am getting < 2 MB/sec where i would expect at
least 10 MB/sec.
My Setup:
Machine | ANTSRV1| ANTSRV2
==
B
12 matches
Mail list logo
