why is plink slower than ssh? - SSH

This is a discussion on why is plink slower than ssh? - SSH ; We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote repositories are accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use putty with svn with good success. I can also use plink with bitkeeper but it is a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: why is plink slower than ssh?

  1. why is plink slower than ssh?

    We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote repositories are
    accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use putty with svn with good
    success. I can also use plink with bitkeeper but it is a great deal
    slower than ssh from cygwin in doing the same job.

    The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have to
    type in my passphrase everytime. I would like to use plink since I
    already have pageant running. Can someone explain why plink would be so
    much slower than ssh in doing this tunnel?

    We are talking about taking 2x-3x the time needed by cygwin ssh on the
    same machine talking to the same remote machine.

    Thanks!

  2. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    >>>>> "RB" == Reggie Burnett writes:

    RB> We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote
    RB> repositories are accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use
    RB> putty with svn with good success. I can also use plink with
    RB> bitkeeper but it is a great deal slower than ssh from cygwin in
    RB> doing the same job.

    RB> The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I
    RB> have to type in my passphrase everytime. I would like to use
    RB> plink since I already have pageant running. Can someone explain
    RB> why plink would be so much slower than ssh in doing this tunnel?

    RB> We are talking about taking 2x-3x the time needed by cygwin ssh on
    RB> the same machine talking to the same remote machine.

    RB> Thanks!

    It might be helpful to run plink -v and see where the slowdown occurs.

    --
    Richard Silverman
    res@qoxp.net


  3. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    Richard E. Silverman wrote:
    >>>>>> "RB" == Reggie Burnett writes:

    >
    > RB> We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote
    > RB> repositories are accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use
    > RB> putty with svn with good success. I can also use plink with
    > RB> bitkeeper but it is a great deal slower than ssh from cygwin in
    > RB> doing the same job.
    >
    > RB> The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I
    > RB> have to type in my passphrase everytime. I would like to use
    > RB> plink since I already have pageant running. Can someone explain
    > RB> why plink would be so much slower than ssh in doing this tunnel?
    >
    > RB> We are talking about taking 2x-3x the time needed by cygwin ssh on
    > RB> the same machine talking to the same remote machine.
    >
    > RB> Thanks!
    >
    > It might be helpful to run plink -v and see where the slowdown occurs.
    >


    ok. I'll try that and report back.

  4. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    Reggie Burnett wrote:
    > The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have to
    > type in my passphrase everytime.


    I haven't tested plink at all recently, but I haven't had any trouble
    getting sshagent to work. Please post more details if you'd like help
    troubleshooting that issue.

    --
    Darren Dunham ddunham@taos.com
    Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/
    Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
    < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

  5. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:11:46 -0600, Reggie Burnett wrote:

    > We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote repositories are
    > accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use putty with svn with good
    > success. I can also use plink with bitkeeper but it is a great deal
    > slower than ssh from cygwin in doing the same job.
    >
    > The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have to
    > type in my passphrase everytime. I would like to use plink since I
    > already have pageant running. Can someone explain why plink would be so
    > much slower than ssh in doing this tunnel?
    >
    > We are talking about taking 2x-3x the time needed by cygwin ssh on the
    > same machine talking to the same remote machine.


    I don't know if this is relevant to your problem, but I have
    noticed that PuTTY-based clients propose, by default, a rather small
    window size. When transferring large amounts of data this can have very
    significant consequences: I have a setup in which, transferring a 250MB
    file from the same SSH server and over the same network, an OpenSSH
    client (invoked as scp) completes the transfer at more than 11MB/s
    whereas a PuTTY one (invoked as pscp) performs at less than 3MB/s.



  6. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    J. Sommers wrote:
    > On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:11:46 -0600, Reggie Burnett wrote:
    >
    >> We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote repositories are
    >> accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use putty with svn with good
    >> success. I can also use plink with bitkeeper but it is a great deal
    >> slower than ssh from cygwin in doing the same job.
    >>
    >> The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have to
    >> type in my passphrase everytime. I would like to use plink since I
    >> already have pageant running. Can someone explain why plink would be so
    >> much slower than ssh in doing this tunnel?
    >>
    >> We are talking about taking 2x-3x the time needed by cygwin ssh on the
    >> same machine talking to the same remote machine.

    >
    > I don't know if this is relevant to your problem, but I have
    > noticed that PuTTY-based clients propose, by default, a rather small
    > window size. When transferring large amounts of data this can have very
    > significant consequences: I have a setup in which, transferring a 250MB
    > file from the same SSH server and over the same network, an OpenSSH
    > client (invoked as scp) completes the transfer at more than 11MB/s
    > whereas a PuTTY one (invoked as pscp) performs at less than 3MB/s.
    >
    >


    Is there a way to specify a larger window size?

  7. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    Darren Dunham wrote:
    > Reggie Burnett wrote:
    >> The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have to
    >> type in my passphrase everytime.

    >
    > I haven't tested plink at all recently, but I haven't had any trouble
    > getting sshagent to work. Please post more details if you'd like help
    > troubleshooting that issue.
    >


    I'd love to know your sshagent setup, if you care to share.

  8. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:07:26 -0600, Reggie Burnett wrote:

    > J. Sommers wrote:
    >> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:11:46 -0600, Reggie Burnett wrote:
    >>
    >>> We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote repositories
    >>> are accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use putty with svn
    >>> with good success. I can also use plink with bitkeeper but it is a
    >>> great deal slower than ssh from cygwin in doing the same job.
    >>>
    >>> The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have
    >>> to type in my passphrase everytime. I would like to use plink since I
    >>> already have pageant running. Can someone explain why plink would be
    >>> so much slower than ssh in doing this tunnel?
    >>>
    >>> We are talking about taking 2x-3x the time needed by cygwin ssh on the
    >>> same machine talking to the same remote machine.

    >>
    >> I don't know if this is relevant to your problem, but I have
    >> noticed that PuTTY-based clients propose, by default, a rather small
    >> window size. When transferring large amounts of data this can have very
    >> significant consequences: I have a setup in which, transferring a 250MB
    >> file from the same SSH server and over the same network, an OpenSSH
    >> client (invoked as scp) completes the transfer at more than 11MB/s
    >> whereas a PuTTY one (invoked as pscp) performs at less than 3MB/s.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Is there a way to specify a larger window size?


    Other than changing the code itself, I wouldn't know. You'd be
    better off asking the PuTTY developers. Again, I am not sure that this is
    your problem though. Like I said, it will become noticeable only when you
    transfer lots and lots of bulk data.






  9. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    Reggie Burnett wrote:
    > Darren Dunham wrote:
    >> Reggie Burnett wrote:
    >>> The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have to
    >>> type in my passphrase everytime.

    >>
    >> I haven't tested plink at all recently, but I haven't had any trouble
    >> getting sshagent to work. Please post more details if you'd like help
    >> troubleshooting that issue.
    >>

    >
    > I'd love to know your sshagent setup, if you care to share.


    Standard setup. This is all in a cygwin shell. The current machine I'm
    on is XP Pro, but I don't think that matters.

    ddunham@xpbox ~
    $ ssh-keygen -t rsa
    Generating public/private rsa key pair.
    Enter file in which to save the key (/home/ddunham/.ssh/id_rsa):
    Enter passphrase (empty for no passphrase):
    Enter same passphrase again:
    Your identification has been saved in /home/ddunham/.ssh/id_rsa.
    Your public key has been saved in /home/ddunham/.ssh/id_rsa.pub.
    The key fingerprint is:
    7d:39:15:48:e8:a4:0f:92:d3:0f:7b:38:0b:31:87:44 ddunham@xpbox

    ddunham@xpbox ~
    $ ssh $host "cat >> .ssh/authorized_keys" < .ssh/id_rsa.pub
    ddunham@'s password:

    # note that I currently require password auth on this host.

    ddunham@xpbox ~
    $ eval `ssh-agent`
    Agent pid 4936

    ddunham@xpbox ~
    $ ssh-add
    Enter passphrase for /home/ddunham/.ssh/id_rsa:
    Identity added: /home/ddunham/.ssh/id_rsa (/home/ddunham/.ssh/id_rsa)

    ddunham@xpbox ~
    $ ssh $host pwd
    /home/ddunham

    # Agent works.

    ddunham@xpbox ~
    $ eval `ssh-agent -k`
    Agent pid 4936 killed

    ddunham@xpbox ~
    $ ssh $host pwd
    Enter passphrase for key '/home/ddunham/.ssh/id_rsa':

    --
    Darren Dunham ddunham@taos.com
    Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/
    Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
    < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

  10. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    Reggie Burnett wrote:
    > We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote repositories are
    > accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use putty with svn with good
    > success. I can also use plink with bitkeeper but it is a great deal
    > slower than ssh from cygwin in doing the same job.
    >
    > The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have to
    > type in my passphrase everytime. I would like to use plink since I
    > already have pageant running. Can someone explain why plink would be so
    > much slower than ssh in doing this tunnel?
    >
    > We are talking about taking 2x-3x the time needed by cygwin ssh on the
    > same machine talking to the same remote machine.
    >
    > Thanks!


    Can you switch to git? That's what Linus Torvalds did when he wrote it, and it seems to be doing quite well.

  11. Re: why is plink slower than ssh?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Reggie Burnett wrote:
    >> We use bitkeeper as our scm tool and all of our remote repositories
    >> are accessed with ssh. I work from Windows and use putty with svn
    >> with good success. I can also use plink with bitkeeper but it is a
    >> great deal slower than ssh from cygwin in doing the same job.
    >>
    >> The problem is that I can't get sshagent to work on Windows so I have
    >> to type in my passphrase everytime. I would like to use plink since I
    >> already have pageant running. Can someone explain why plink would be
    >> so much slower than ssh in doing this tunnel?
    >>
    >> We are talking about taking 2x-3x the time needed by cygwin ssh on the
    >> same machine talking to the same remote machine.
    >>
    >> Thanks!

    >
    > Can you switch to git? That's what Linus Torvalds did when he wrote it,
    > and it seems to be doing quite well.


    We are looking at switching to bzr

+ Reply to Thread