scp UNBELIEVABLY slow - SSH

This is a discussion on scp UNBELIEVABLY slow - SSH ; John Thompson writes: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > On 2008-03-25, Frank wrote: >> Ignoramus16148 wrote: >> >>> I am on a good network here. I need to copy a bunch of AVI from a >>> laptop to my ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

  1. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    John Thompson writes:

    > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
    > On 2008-03-25, Frank wrote:
    >> Ignoramus16148 wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am on a good network here. I need to copy a bunch of AVI from a
    >>> laptop to my basement server. Wired network. HTTP test yields about 6
    >>> megabytes per second transfer speed.
    >>>
    >>> SCP is only doing 188 kB per second, or 36 times slower.
    >>>
    >>> I am copying from Ubuntu Hardy to Fedora 7.
    >>>
    >>> WTF, how can I debug this. Thanks.

    >
    >> Get a real OS.
    >> Switch to Vista.

    >
    > AFAIK, Vista doesn't include scp or any other secure file transfer
    > software at all.


    Nonsense. You can install rsync on Windows too.

    As well as ssh and scp and .....

    --
    < doogie> asuffield: how do you think dpkg was originally written? :|
    < asuffield> by letting iwj get dangerously near a computer
    -- in #debian-devel

  2. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    Hadron wrote:

    > John Thompson writes:
    >
    >> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
    >> On 2008-03-25, Frank wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus16148 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I am on a good network here. I need to copy a bunch of AVI from a
    >>>> laptop to my basement server. Wired network. HTTP test yields about 6
    >>>> megabytes per second transfer speed.
    >>>>
    >>>> SCP is only doing 188 kB per second, or 36 times slower.
    >>>>
    >>>> I am copying from Ubuntu Hardy to Fedora 7.
    >>>>
    >>>> WTF, how can I debug this. Thanks.

    >>
    >>> Get a real OS.
    >>> Switch to Vista.

    >>
    >> AFAIK, Vista doesn't include scp or any other secure file transfer
    >> software at all.

    >
    > Nonsense. You can install rsync on Windows too.
    >
    > As well as ssh and scp and .....
    >

    I can imagine YOU doing that. Anyone with half a brain would just stick with
    Linux.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    Q: What OS is built for lusers?
    A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

    Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
    Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6



  3. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    On 2008-03-29, NoStop wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> John Thompson writes:
    >>
    >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
    >>> On 2008-03-25, Frank wrote:
    >>>> Ignoramus16148 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I am on a good network here. I need to copy a bunch of AVI from a
    >>>>> laptop to my basement server. Wired network. HTTP test yields about 6
    >>>>> megabytes per second transfer speed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> SCP is only doing 188 kB per second, or 36 times slower.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I am copying from Ubuntu Hardy to Fedora 7.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> WTF, how can I debug this. Thanks.
    >>>
    >>>> Get a real OS.
    >>>> Switch to Vista.
    >>>
    >>> AFAIK, Vista doesn't include scp or any other secure file transfer
    >>> software at all.

    >>
    >> Nonsense. You can install rsync on Windows too.
    >>
    >> As well as ssh and scp and .....
    >>

    > I can imagine YOU doing that. Anyone with half a brain would just stick with
    > Linux.


    On the Windows XP computer that I use at work, I run X windows, the
    whole works of xterms and binutils, perl, cron, and firefox.

    That stuff actually works, but not quite as well as under Linux. For
    example, you cannot access mounted network drives from cron.

    i

  4. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow


    > I can imagine YOU doing that. Anyone with half a brain would just stick with
    > Linux.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >

    @NoStop:
    While I agree about sticking to Linux, perhaps we'll leave out the heat
    when conveying that to poor Hadron, now shall we?
    Not very constructive for the poor fellow. No need to taunt him when
    he's already cursed by the vi$ta disease...

  5. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

    On 2008-03-29, Hadron wrote:
    > John Thompson writes:
    >
    >> AFAIK, Vista doesn't include scp or any other secure file transfer
    >> software at all.


    > Nonsense. You can install rsync on Windows too.
    >
    > As well as ssh and scp and .....


    Of course, you can install those. But I said I didn't think secure file
    transfer softare was *INCLUDED* with Windows. OTOH, every linux
    distribution I've tried (and I've been using linux since 1999) includes
    ssh and rsync, and a boatload of other useful software you'd have to
    search out and install separately for Windows.

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

  6. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
    On 2008-03-31, Hadron wrote:

    > John Thompson writes:
    >
    >> Of course, you can install those. But I said I didn't think secure file
    >> transfer softare was *INCLUDED* with Windows. OTOH, every linux


    > Define included? I install from a netinst generally and none of those
    > things are on that either.


    Doesn't the netinst installation process offer to install ssh, rsync,
    whatever? I don't remember, the last network installation I did
    was Debian MIPS on an SGI Indy and that was several years ago. The
    DVD/CD install process does in any case.

    But I am confident that the Windows install process doesn't offer any
    such option.

    > The point is that these things are there and easily available for
    > Windows too.


    Define "easily available." :-)

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

  7. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow -- PLOT THICKENS

    Ignoramus16148 schrieb:
    > On 2008-03-25, NoStop wrote:
    >> Bad security on YOUR local LAN?
    >>

    >
    > Even if someone was downloading torrents through my wifi, it would
    > only account for a few megabits. So while your idea is interesting, I
    > do not think that it could account for it.
    >
    > However, plot thickened.
    >
    > My laptop was connected to the basement server through three gigabit
    > switches A, B, C. That's where I had this terrible performance.
    >
    > I moved it to the basement where it is connected through switches C
    > and D (D is a 100 megabit switch).
    >
    > Here, the performance improved dramatically to 3.9 megaBYTES per
    > second.
    >
    > Go figure.
    >
    > Why SCP was 36 times slower than HTTP going through A, B, C but not C
    > and D, is a mystery.


    i have seen effects like this due to the mtu und mtu-path discovery.
    Does your net allow icmp?

    Do you compare HHTP throughput by large files like your files you want
    transfer, or just by loading some webpages?

    Have you tried to use another cipher, like blowfish instead 3DES?

    Wolfgang


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3