Chris Jones wrote:
> I doubt on any recent machine the CPU will saturate due to encryption
> before the network bandwidth does (if it does, I doubt you have anything
> to worry about bandwidth wise
Yup, I see what you mean, but "recent" can be pretty misleading. My post
was based on our experience with my brother's computer connected on our
LAN in our home. I run a Linux machine as a router (ppp0 to our LAN) and
when I transfered a file to/from his computer via rsync or scp, I could
get maybe around 7 MB/sec (Mega Bytes / sec) instead of around 11 MB/s
(theoretical upper limit is 100 Mb/s or 12.5 MB/s). For the life of me,
we couldn't find what was the bottleneck. I went each and every iptables
to see what was causing the problem without much luck.
Then I had a reason to install dnsmasq on the router machine. That
helped a bit and upped the speed to around 8 or 9 MB/s.
Then incidentally my brother replaced that computer a few months ago
with a new machine. Now, we are getting the expected speed of around
10.5~11.5 MB/s, via rsync or scp. This makes much much more sense.
The older machine was a 1.9 GHz Intel CPU with 512 MB of RAM. Not a
machine which one would call a slow machine as far as scp or ssh is
> Moreover, I
>> think one needs an account on the remote machine.
> The OP seemed to suggest (to me at least) that he did.
Yeah, I must have missed that then.
> Someone else suggested iftop. I hadn't heard of this before but seems
> pretty useful.
In that case, bmon and bwm are two additional examples to try.
ubuntu-users mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users