On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Aris Adamantiadis wrote:
Your implementation gave good results (only 50% slower than openssh) because you were running in on localhost. Doing it on a high-latency connection (like a 100mbps path between europe and US) would give catastrophic results.
I'm fully aware that more round-trips makes it worse, and I've repeatedly mentioned my thoughts around further improvements regarding that - even in this very mail you responded to now. My changes now didn't change anything about that but greatly improves the speed for low latency situations and that was certainly needed as well. If we can't keep up at almost-zero latency, then we certainly can't at high latency.
You can have a look at the current API being used here:
Yes, the API really is the key here. That's what sets the restrictions or at least sets the challenge level for how to do the implementation of this. I need/want the API to remain like today as it's simple and elegant, but yet I want high speed. I would be sad to sacrifize it.
-- / daniel.haxx.se _______________________________________________ libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel
