Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 07:58:54PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
> So you were doing SSL over an SSH tunnel. That explains why
> compression didn't seem to be working -- SSH was trying to compress
> essentially random data (the SSL-encrypted data), and random data
> doesn't have enou
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 07:58:54PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
> ARGH IT WORKS ! :)
> postgresql.conf contained ssl=on , so ssl=off = speed of light via ssh
> tunnel :)
So you were doing SSL over an SSH tunnel. That explains why
compression didn't seem to be working -- SSH was trying to comp
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> What does a sniffer like tcpdump or wireshark/ethereal show? Let's
> see how much data is being sent over a compressed vs. uncompressed
> connection and how long the data transfers are taking.
ARGH IT WORKS ! :)
postgresql.conf contained ssl=on , so ssl=off = s
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 06:34:48PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
>> I'm testing over DSL line (test server have 256k Upload and 1MB
>> download). Results are based on this connection.
>> Server : PIV 3Ghz HT, 1GB RAM. (DSL D 1MB U 256k)
>> Client : PIV 3Ghz HT, 1GB RAM. (DSL D 3MB U 3
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 06:34:48PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
> I'm testing over DSL line (test server have 256k Upload and 1MB download).
> Results are based on this connection.
> Server : PIV 3Ghz HT, 1GB RAM. (DSL D 1MB U 256k)
> Client : PIV 3Ghz HT, 1GB RAM. (DSL D 3MB U 384k).
>
> nTier results sh
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 09:52:04AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 05:37:50PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
>> > But, when I try (via tunnel, explained above)
>> > psql -p 5400 -h localhost mydatabase
>> > it connects and works fine, but there's no compression.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 09:52:04AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 05:37:50PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
> > But, when I try (via tunnel, explained above)
> > psql -p 5400 -h localhost mydatabase
> > it connects and works fine, but there's no compression.
> > Query returns in cca 2
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> That's a tenuous conclusion; it assumes that the data transfer is
Are you trying to say that data won't be compressed ?
> what's taking all the time. Query planning and execution and
> client-side processing must also be taken into account. Using a
> sniffer to observe th
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 05:37:50PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
> But, when I try (via tunnel, explained above)
> psql -p 5400 -h localhost mydatabase
> it connects and works fine, but there's no compression.
> Query returns in cca 20 seconds, almost same (maybe 0.5 sec. different) as
> normal psql conne
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 03:38:01PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> > zeljko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
>> >> protocol in 8.2 ?
>> >
>> > Why bother? Run your session through an ssh tunne
zeljko wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > zeljko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
> >> protocol in 8.2 ?
> >
> > Why bother? Run your session through an ssh tunnel and ask it to
> > compress.
>
> hm... tunneling works as expected
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 03:38:01PM +0200, zeljko wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > zeljko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
> >> protocol in 8.2 ?
> >
> > Why bother? Run your session through an ssh tunnel and ask it to
> > compress.
Tom Lane wrote:
> zeljko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
>> protocol in 8.2 ?
>
> Why bother? Run your session through an ssh tunnel and ask it to
> compress.
hm... tunneling works as expected, but there's no compression ?!?
s
On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
(b) I believe there's a "null cipher" mode for SSL if you truly don't
need encryption.
Nothing such is obviously documented for SSHv2, which is unfortunate
for some uses.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Tom Lane wrote:
> zeljko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
>> protocol in 8.2 ?
>
> Why bother? Run your session through an ssh tunnel and ask it to
> compress.
I saw it on TODO list, not marked for 8.2 but it's there.
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> zeljko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
>>> protocol in 8.2 ?
>>
>> Why bother? Run your session through an ssh tunnel and ask it to
>> compress.
> Wouldn't that add
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
> zeljko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
>> protocol in 8.2 ?
>
> Why bother? Run your session through an ssh tunnel and ask it to
> compress.
Wouldn't that add ext
zeljko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
> protocol in 8.2 ?
Why bother? Run your session through an ssh tunnel and ask it to
compress.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)--
Is there any plans (or somebody already working on) to see compressed
protocol in 8.2 ?
zac
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
19 matches
Mail list logo
