Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp

On 24 May, 18:21, "Colin B." <cbi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

We used the default, which is /dev/urandom. This device doesn't block if it
gets 'depleted,' so it shouldn't have any problems keeping up. That said, I'm
seeing 100% CPU utilisation for SCP in most cases, and that 100% is split
evenly between usr and sys.

Hmm. Do other file transfer protocols block this way? Rsync, FTP,
HTTP, or HTTPS? If you only need file transfer and not actual shell
access, why not use HTTPS and HTTPS/WebDAV for upload? (Yes, I'm a
broken record about this!)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
    ... HTTP, or HTTPS? ... If you only need file transfer and not actual shell ... SCP and SSH get used constantly between our machines internally, ...
    (comp.security.ssh)
  • Re: secure transfers and authentication
    ... destination using SCP? ... > certificates from our Certificate authority to do the authentication and ... > then https to transfer the data. ... Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: ssh transfert log "Urgent"
    ... > Why not consider using HTTPS and, say, WebDAV over HTTPS for uploads? ... log, i'm alreayd using scp and sftp frop openssh, and i'm happy with it. ...
    (comp.security.ssh)
  • Re: secure transfers and authentication
    ... I second the scp and maybe add the sftp protocol as well. ... certificates from our Certificate authority to do the authentication and ... then https to transfer the data. ... Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org ...
    (Security-Basics)