hi there,
poking around in the HP ssh docs, one can see the following in the FAQ:
Q: How is the performance of HP-UX Secure Shell?
A: Compared with conventional file transfer methods, the scp command
is 2 - 3 times slower than rcp, and sftp is 2 to 3 times slower than
ftp. This is because
On 10/30/05, frantisek holop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but a couple of months ago a link appeared here describing a HPN
(as in hihg performance enabled) ssh patch. i kept that mail for
a very long time because i was very much interested in the answers
of the ssh developers, but there was none.
frantisek holop wrote:
but a couple of months ago a link appeared here describing a HPN
(as in hihg performance enabled) ssh patch. i kept that mail for
a very long time because i was very much interested in the answers
of the ssh developers, but there was none. and so i assumed it must
be
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Matthew Weigel wrote:
SNIP
HPN-SSH improves OpenSSH performance in situations that you and I don't
deal with. Maybe I'm mistaken... do you have an OC-3 connection you're
trying to scp files across? If you are dealing with T-1s and 100Mbps
nope, but will OC-48 or 10G
frantisek holop wrote:
so before anyone tags this mail as a trolling flamebait
(which it is not), i just would like to ask
-have others tried HPN-SSH?
-have ssh developers tried it?
-or simply, has ssh hit its performance limit and can't get any better?
the HPN patch greatly improves
frantisek holop wrote:
hi there,
poking around in the HP ssh docs, one can see the following in the FAQ:
Q: How is the performance of HP-UX Secure Shell?
A: Compared with conventional file transfer methods, the scp command
is 2 - 3 times slower than rcp, and sftp is 2 to 3 times slower
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 02:41:25PM +0100, frantisek holop wrote:
hi there,
poking around in the HP ssh docs, one can see the following in the FAQ:
Q: How is the performance of HP-UX Secure Shell?
A: Compared with conventional file transfer methods, the scp command
is 2 - 3 times slower
7 matches
Mail list logo