On 19/11/17 22:45, Ron Kelley wrote:
In all seriousness, I just ran some tests on my servers to see if SSH is still
the bottleneck on rsync. These servers have dual 10G NICs (linux bond), 3.6GHz
CPU, and 32G RAM. I found some interesting data points:
* Running the command "pv /dev/zero | ssh $REMOTE_SERVER 'cat > /dev/null’” I
was able to get about 235MB/sec between two servers with ssh pegged at 100% CPU usage.
[...]
In the end, rsync over NFS (using 10G networking) is much faster than rsync
using SSH keys in my environment. Maybe your environment is different or you
use different ciphers?
Very good data points. I agree that you can saturate ssh if you have 10G
network connection and either SSDs or some expensive HDD arrays on both
sides and some sequential data to transfer. If you don't have any of
listed items, ssh does not slow down things.
As for not trusting the LAN with unencrypted traffic, I would argue either the
security policies are not well enforced or the server uses insecure NFS mount
options. I have no reason not to trust my LAN.
I was just afraid that someone reading your post would copy-paste your
configuration to use over less secure LAN or even WAN. (I admit this is
not a big problem for original poster since FTP is not much better in
this regard.)
--
With Best Regards,
Marat Khalili
_______________________________________________
lxc-users mailing list
lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org
http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
