Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- From: Darren Tucker <dtucker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:38:57 +1000
On 2007-05-28, Colin B. <cbigam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
That's an interesting question. However, we do in fact need shell access.
SCP and SSH get used constantly between our machines internally, and X11
over SSH was the _real_ performance bottleneck we were (are?) trying to
solve.
Now problems with X11 may be more a function of latency than bandwidth.
Have you actually measured the bandwidth utilization during X operations?
If you haven't already, make sure compression is turned off.
I've seen this particularly with Java-based X GUIs, and I suspect that
the drawing is happening synchronously or at least partially so.
Unfortunately I've never had a chance to investigate much.
SCP provides a convenient bandwidth test, but file transfer isn't
generally our biggest obstacle.
--
Darren Tucker (dtucker at zip.com.au)
GPG key 8FF4FA69 / D9A3 86E9 7EEE AF4B B2D4 37C9 C982 80C7 8FF4 FA69
Good judgement comes with experience. Unfortunately, the experience
usually comes from bad judgement.
.
- References:
- Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- From: Colin B.
- Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- From: Steven Mocking
- Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- From: Nico
- Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- From: Colin B.
- Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- From: Nico
- Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- From: Colin B.
- Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- Prev by Date: Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- Next by Date: Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- Previous by thread: Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- Next by thread: Re: Sloooowwwww ssh/scp
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|