FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-06-2011, 11:20 AM
kellyremo
 
Default OpenSSH could be faster...then why don't they path it??

https://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/hpn-v-ssh-tput.jpg

"SCP and the underlying SSH2 protocol implementation in OpenSSH is network performance limited by statically defined internal flow control buffers. These buffers often end up acting as a bottleneck for network throughput of SCP, especially on long and high bandwith network links. Modifying the ssh code to allow the buffers to be defined at run time eliminates this bottleneck. We have created a patch that will remove the bottlenecks in OpenSSH and is fully interoperable with other servers and clients. In addition HPN clients will be able to download faster from non HPN servers, and HPN servers will be able to receive uploads faster from non HPN clients. However, the host receiving the data must have a properly tuned TCP/IP stack."

My question is: So Why Does the original OpenSSH has "limited statically defined internal flow control buffers"?? It could be way faster, even 10x!!

With the HPN-SCP path it could be the descendant of FTP! Why aren't there any ""OpenSCP packages""? ('normal SCP+HPN-SCP path+no local user needed for SCP'ing+chroot by default')

Any opinions?

Thank you!
 
Old 02-06-2011, 11:20 AM
kellyremo
 
Default OpenSSH could be faster...then why don't they path it??

https://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/hpn-v-ssh-tput.jpg

"SCP and the underlying SSH2 protocol implementation in OpenSSH is network performance limited by statically defined internal flow control buffers. These buffers often end up acting as a bottleneck for network throughput of SCP, especially on long and high bandwith network links. Modifying the ssh code to allow the buffers to be defined at run time eliminates this bottleneck. We have created a patch that will remove the bottlenecks in OpenSSH and is fully interoperable with other servers and clients. In addition HPN clients will be able to download faster from non HPN servers, and HPN servers will be able to receive uploads faster from non HPN clients. However, the host receiving the data must have a properly tuned TCP/IP stack."

My question is: So Why Does the original OpenSSH has "limited statically defined internal flow control buffers"?? It could be way faster, even 10x!!

With the HPN-SCP path it could be the descendant of FTP! Why aren't there any ""OpenSCP packages""? ('normal SCP+HPN-SCP path+no local user needed for SCP'ing+chroot by default')

Any opinions?

Thank you!

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 02-06-2011, 11:20 AM
kellyremo
 
Default OpenSSH could be faster...then why don't they path it??

https://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/hpn-v-ssh-tput.jpg

"SCP and the underlying SSH2 protocol implementation in OpenSSH is network performance limited by statically defined internal flow control buffers. These buffers often end up acting as a bottleneck for network throughput of SCP, especially on long and high bandwith network links. Modifying the ssh code to allow the buffers to be defined at run time eliminates this bottleneck. We have created a patch that will remove the bottlenecks in OpenSSH and is fully interoperable with other servers and clients. In addition HPN clients will be able to download faster from non HPN servers, and HPN servers will be able to receive uploads faster from non HPN clients. However, the host receiving the data must have a properly tuned TCP/IP stack."

My question is: So Why Does the original OpenSSH has "limited statically defined internal flow control buffers"?? It could be way faster, even 10x!!

With the HPN-SCP path it could be the descendant of FTP! Why aren't there any ""OpenSCP packages""? ('normal SCP+HPN-SCP path+no local user needed for SCP'ing+chroot by default')

Any opinions?

Thank you!

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-06-2011, 11:20 AM
kellyremo
 
Default OpenSSH could be faster...then why don't they path it??

https://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/hpn-v-ssh-tput.jpg

"SCP and the underlying SSH2 protocol implementation in OpenSSH is network performance limited by statically defined internal flow control buffers. These buffers often end up acting as a bottleneck for network throughput of SCP, especially on long and high bandwith network links. Modifying the ssh code to allow the buffers to be defined at run time eliminates this bottleneck. We have created a patch that will remove the bottlenecks in OpenSSH and is fully interoperable with other servers and clients. In addition HPN clients will be able to download faster from non HPN servers, and HPN servers will be able to receive uploads faster from non HPN clients. However, the host receiving the data must have a properly tuned TCP/IP stack."

My question is: So Why Does the original OpenSSH has "limited statically defined internal flow control buffers"?? It could be way faster, even 10x!!

With the HPN-SCP path it could be the descendant of FTP! Why aren't there any ""OpenSCP packages""? ('normal SCP+HPN-SCP path+no local user needed for SCP'ing+chroot by default')

Any opinions?

Thank you!

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:27 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org