On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:35:11 -0500, 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.
do a google search for "scp performance"?

Use NFS instead of SCP?

On 2008-03-25, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:35:11 -0500, 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.
> do a google search for "scp performance"?
>
> Use NFS instead of SCP?

I want to use SCP. It is a bad security to se NFS in this manner.

i

Ignoramus16148 wrote:

> On 2008-03-25, AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:35:11 -0500, 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.
>> do a google search for "scp performance"?
>>
>> Use NFS instead of SCP?
>
> I want to use SCP. It is a bad security to se NFS in this manner.
>
> i

Bad security on YOUR local LAN?

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

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.
>
> i

Get a real OS.
Switch to Vista.
urbuttoo is a fukkin toy POS os.
Frank

"Ignoramus16148" wrote in message
news:EqWdnYILIYOE-HXanZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 2008-03-25, AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:35:11 -0500, 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.
>> do a google search for "scp performance"?
>>
>> Use NFS instead of SCP?
>
> I want to use SCP. It is a bad security to se NFS in this manner.
>

if you don't get it sorted out, I've had pretty good luck with:
rsync -e ssh ...

there's some documentation referenced from:
http://rsync.samba.org/documentation.html

regards,
mark

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.

HTTP test? Maybe you meant 6Mbps (megabits not megabytes).

Have you looked into SSHFS? It mounts a remote directory locally using
SSH and fuse.
http://elwoodicious.com/2006/07/05/s...buntu-and-you/

I get about 12-15 MB/sec (~100Mbps).

--
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously.
--Benjamin Franklin

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.
>>
>> i
>
> Get a real OS.
> Switch to Vista.
> urbuttoo is a fukkin toy POS os.
> Frank

But Ubuntu users are able to spell beyond pre school level.

On 2008-03-25, johnny bobby bee 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.
>
> HTTP test? Maybe you meant 6Mbps (megabits not megabytes).

No, HTTP test was about 6 megabytes per second, and SCP test was 180
kilobytes per second. No typo. However, see another post titled "plot
thickens".

i

> Have you looked into SSHFS? It mounts a remote directory locally using
> SSH and fuse.
> http://elwoodicious.com/2006/07/05/s...buntu-and-you/
>
> I get about 12-15 MB/sec (~100Mbps).
>

Frank wrote:

.....
> urbuttoo is a fukkin toy POS os.

Whose butts (oo) are a Point Of Sales toy?
--
vista policy violation: Microsoft optical mouse found penguin patterns
on mousepad. Partition scan in progress to remove offending
incompatible products. Reactivate MS software.
Linux 2.6.24. [LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:15:14 -0700, 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.
>>
>> i

>Get a real OS.
>Switch to Vista.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! With vista, you will be told that you shouldn't be
copying the files and that the authorities have been alerted.




>urbuttoo is a fukkin toy POS os.
>Frank

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:33:39 GMT, johnny bobby bee 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.

>HTTP test? Maybe you meant 6Mbps (megabits not megabytes).

>Have you looked into SSHFS? It mounts a remote directory locally using
>SSH and fuse.
>http://elwoodicious.com/2006/07/05/s...buntu-and-you/

>I get about 12-15 MB/sec (~100Mbps).

Why bother with the overhead of SSH on a home network? I get 50-70MB/s (bytes,
not bits) via NFS to my file server and that is without large packets as I
have a mixed 100/1000 network.

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.
>>
>> i
>
> Get a real OS.
> Switch to Vista.
> urbuttoo is a fukkin toy POS os.
> Frank

Dick.

Cork Soaker wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>> i
>>
>>
>> Get a real OS.
>> Switch to Vista.
>> urbuttoo is a fukkin toy POS os.
>> Frank
>
>
> Dick.
Head.

AZ Nomad writes:

>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:33:39 GMT, johnny bobby bee 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.

>>HTTP test? Maybe you meant 6Mbps (megabits not megabytes).

>>Have you looked into SSHFS? It mounts a remote directory locally using
>>SSH and fuse.
>>http://elwoodicious.com/2006/07/05/s...buntu-and-you/

>>I get about 12-15 MB/sec (~100Mbps).

>Why bother with the overhead of SSH on a home network? I get 50-70MB/s (bytes,
>not bits) via NFS to my file server and that is without large packets as I
>have a mixed 100/1000 network.

I think he wants to know why scp is so slow, not how he can get around it.

Is ssh slow-- EG use rsync over ssh. Is it also slow?

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
Unruh staggered into the Black Sun and said:
> AZ Nomad writes:
>>johnny bobby bee wrote:
>>>Ignoramus16148 wrote:
>>>> Wired network. HTTP test yields about 6 megabytes per second
>>>> transfer speed. SCP is only doing 188 kB per second, or 36 times
>>>> slower.
>>>HTTP test? Maybe you meant 6Mbps (megabits not megabytes). Have you
>>>looked into SSHFS? It mounts a remote directory locally using SSH and
>>>fuse. http://elwoodicious.com/2006/07/05/s...buntu-and-you/
>>Why bother with the overhead of SSH on a home network? I get
>>50-70MB/s (bytes, not bits) via NFS to my file server and that is
>>without large packets as I have a mixed 100/1000 network.
> I think he wants to know why scp is so slow, not how he can get around
> it. Is ssh slow-- EG use rsync over ssh. Is it also slow?

Something that might be useful is to scp -v a file to this machine, then
scp -v the same file to another machine which doesn't display slowness
in scp'ing. Then look for differences in the output from the scp
processes. scp on a 100bT line should go quite fast, assuming that the
disks on the destination side aren't 97% full or something.

--
That which does not kill us makes us stranger.
--Trevor Goodchild, Aeon Flux
My blog and resume: http://crow202.dyndns.org:8080/wordpress/
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:06:23 GMT, Unruh wrote:
>AZ Nomad writes:

>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:33:39 GMT, johnny bobby bee 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.

>>>HTTP test? Maybe you meant 6Mbps (megabits not megabytes).

>>>Have you looked into SSHFS? It mounts a remote directory locally using
>>>SSH and fuse.
>>>http://elwoodicious.com/2006/07/05/s...buntu-and-you/

>>>I get about 12-15 MB/sec (~100Mbps).

>>Why bother with the overhead of SSH on a home network? I get 50-70MB/s (bytes,
>>not bits) via NFS to my file server and that is without large packets as I
>>have a mixed 100/1000 network.

>I think he wants to know why scp is so slow, not how he can get around it.

>Is ssh slow-- EG use rsync over ssh. Is it also slow?

Yes. The encryption overhead makes anything over ssh much slower than
other protocols.

On 2008-03-26, Unruh wrote:
> AZ Nomad writes:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:33:39 GMT, johnny bobby bee 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.
>
>>>HTTP test? Maybe you meant 6Mbps (megabits not megabytes).
>
>>>Have you looked into SSHFS? It mounts a remote directory locally using
>>>SSH and fuse.
>>>http://elwoodicious.com/2006/07/05/s...buntu-and-you/
>
>>>I get about 12-15 MB/sec (~100Mbps).
>
>>Why bother with the overhead of SSH on a home network? I get 50-70MB/s (bytes,
>>not bits) via NFS to my file server and that is without large packets as I
>>have a mixed 100/1000 network.
>
> I think he wants to know why scp is so slow, not how he can get around it.
>
> Is ssh slow-- EG use rsync over ssh. Is it also slow?
>
>
>
>

What I found is that if I use a chain of switches A, B, C I get
180 kbytes/sec throughput with ssh. If I use switches C, D, I get 3.9
MB/second (over 20x faster).

However, for A,B,C as well as for C, D the HTTP speed is roughly the
same IIRC.

i

On 2008-03-26, Ignoramus6291 wrote:
> On 2008-03-26, Unruh wrote:
>> AZ Nomad writes:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:33:39 GMT, johnny bobby bee 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.
>>
>>>>HTTP test? Maybe you meant 6Mbps (megabits not megabytes).
>>
>>>>Have you looked into SSHFS? It mounts a remote directory locally using
>>>>SSH and fuse.
>>>>http://elwoodicious.com/2006/07/05/s...buntu-and-you/
>>
>>>>I get about 12-15 MB/sec (~100Mbps).
>>
>>>Why bother with the overhead of SSH on a home network? I get 50-70MB/s (bytes,
>>>not bits) via NFS to my file server and that is without large packets as I
>>>have a mixed 100/1000 network.
>>
>> I think he wants to know why scp is so slow, not how he can get around it.
>>
>> Is ssh slow-- EG use rsync over ssh. Is it also slow?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> What I found is that if I use a chain of switches A, B, C I get
> 180 kbytes/sec throughput with ssh. If I use switches C, D, I get 3.9
> MB/second (over 20x faster).
>
> However, for A,B,C as well as for C, D the HTTP speed is roughly the
> same IIRC.
>
> i

and speed of NFS over A, B and C is 4.5 megabytes per second.

i

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.

--
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously.
--Benjamin Franklin