remote ssh dump ziemlich langsam
hey, wenn ich eine platte uebers netz dumpen will klappt das eigentlich alles, aber einfach ziemlich langsam. dump schafft ca 1MB/s ~10Mbit/s scp schafft ca. 6/7MB/s ~50Mbit/s ich habe gelesen, dass man dass mit einem anderen cipher schneller machen kann und das arcfour wohl gut waere, aber das hat bei scp keinen unterschied gemacht, obwohl ich auch nicht weiss, wie ich mir ansehen kann, womit sich ssh denn gerade verschluesselt... fällt dazu irgendwem was ein? bin ein bisschen ratlos. gruz luk
dadirtyluk wrote:
wenn ich eine platte uebers netz dumpen will klappt das eigentlich alles, aber einfach ziemlich langsam.
dump schafft ca 1MB/s ~10Mbit/s scp schafft ca. 6/7MB/s ~50Mbit/s
fällt dazu irgendwem was ein? bin ein bisschen ratlos.
I only got around 33% throughput when dumping via ssh over gigabit ethernet to a remote tapedrive, as compared to dumping to a local tapedrive ("DUMP: Average transfer rate: 3204 kB/s."). The bottleneck was not (only) in the used cipher, as the load on neither machine ever reached 100%. Increasing the dump blocksize ('dump -b 1024') helped a little, but I'm not sure that it was not just the reduced overhead. I can recommend portable USB/firewire harddisks connected locally! Robbert -- Robbert Eggermont Information & Communication Theory R.Eggermont@EWI.TUDelft.nl Electr.Eng., Mathematics & Comp.Science +31 (15) 2783234 Delft University of Technology
i now tried rsh again and after finding the right article in google rsh is easy, too ;) dump is still a bit slower than scp: DUMP: Volume 1 transfer rate: 4891 kB/s i think i can go with that now, but i'd really like to know why ssh slows that thing down so much... thx to the list and greetingz luk (and sorry for responding to some guys directly and not to the list...)
I only got around 33% throughput when dumping via ssh over gigabit ethernet to a remote tapedrive, as compared to dumping to a local tapedrive ("DUMP: Average transfer rate: 3204 kB/s."). The bottleneck was not (only) in the used cipher, as the load on neither machine ever reached 100%. Increasing the dump blocksize ('dump -b 1024') helped a little, but I'm not sure that it was not just the reduced overhead.
I can recommend portable USB/firewire harddisks connected locally!
Robbert
-- Robbert Eggermont Information & Communication Theory R.Eggermont@EWI.TUDelft.nl Electr.Eng., Mathematics & Comp.Science +31 (15) 2783234 Delft University of Technology
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help@suse.com Security-related bug reports go to security@suse.de, not here
participants (2)
-
dadirtyluk -
Robbert Eggermont