scp UNBELIEVABLY slow - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on scp UNBELIEVABLY slow - Ubuntu ; Ignoramus17842 wrote: > On 2008-03-27, Joe wrote: >> On 2008-03-25, Ignoramus16148 >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Use NFS instead of SCP? >>> >>> I want to use SCP. It is a bad security to se NFS in this manner. >> >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

  1. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    Ignoramus17842 wrote:

    > On 2008-03-27, Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-03-25, Ignoramus16148
    >> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Use NFS instead of SCP?
    >>>
    >>> I want to use SCP. It is a bad security to se NFS in this manner.

    >>
    >> If it is on your home network, not routing outside in any way, there
    >> is no security risk. Your call, though...
    >>

    >
    > First of all, though I like my network, I do not exclude the
    > possibility of unfriendly computers on it. I have wifi, and also,
    > there is a windows laptop on my network, plus from time to time I have
    > friends coming in with their laptops.
    >
    > So I try to be safe from such unfriendly computers.
    >
    > i


    Says a lot about the "friends" you keep then. :-) Geez.

    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



  2. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    In comp.security.ssh Dances With Crows wrote:
    > Darren Dunham staggered into the Black Sun and said:
    >> Collisions cannot occur on a full duplex interface.

    >
    > Um... broadcast packets can collide. This is relatively rare, but it
    > does happen. 3F89CAF3.CBC5AF8E@house-from-hell.demon.co.uk said 62
    > million packets, 1 collision.


    What do you mean by a "broadcast packet"? At the media level (where
    collisions occur), there's no such distinction that I can think of. All
    packets are seen by all recipients on the link.

    But regardless of the actual topology, an interface that is configured
    for full-duplex should ignore or disable collision detection. Traffic
    cannot cause a collision to be reported to the driver. If it is, it's
    either not really in full-duplex mode or it's a bug.

    > Other posts from the OP make me think the problem is related to having
    > multiple 802.11 routers involved in the chain, rather than something
    > wrong with the protocol being used or duplex settings. The OP didn't
    > ever reply to my post about using scp -v and checking the output for
    > anything odd, either.


    I definitely agree that the behavior seems to be more involved with the
    path chain than a simple duplex mismatch.

    --
    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. >

  3. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    On 2008-03-26, AZ Nomad wrote:
    >
    > Yes. The encryption overhead makes anything over ssh much slower than
    > other protocols.


    Depends on the encryption you use. Try Blowfish.


    --
    Christopher Mattern

    NOTICE
    Thank you for noticing this new notice
    Your noticing it has been noted
    And will be reported to the authorities

  4. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    On 2008-03-27, Ignoramus17842 wrote:
    > On 2008-03-27, Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-03-26, johnny bobby bee wrote:
    >>> AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>>> Yes. The encryption overhead makes anything over ssh much slower than
    >>>> other protocols.
    >>>
    >>> Much slower, that's a bit of a stretch.
    >>>
    >>> As I said, I use SSHFS and i get 100Mbps on a plain 10/100 Mb network.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not to be too pedantic, but that is not really that likely. Ethernet
    >> isn't that efficient. Usually you can expect to get about 70Mbps or
    >> so on a 100M LAN...
    >>

    >
    > My experience is that I often get top performance on LANs.
    >
    > MANIFOLD::~==>test-speed-hollywood-http
    > --10:08:02-- http://hollywood.algebra.com/tmp/1gig
    > => `/dev/null'
    > Resolving hollywood.algebra.com... 75.146.106.185
    > Connecting to hollywood.algebra.com|75.146.106.185|:80... connected.
    > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    > Length: 1,073,741,824 (1.0G) [text/plain]
    >
    > 100%[================================================== ====================================>] 1,073,741,824 112.21M/s ETA 00:00
    >
    > 10:08:12 (112.04 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [1073741824/1073741824]
    >
    > Here I get 112 megaBYTES [er second on a gigabit home LAN.


    112 MB is about 896 Mb. That is higher than normal, but not unheard of.
    The OP said he was getting 100Mb/s on a 10/100 Network.

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  5. Re: scp UNBELIEVABLY slow

    ["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.

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

  6. 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

  7. 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



  8. 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)

  9. 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)

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