>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 12 00:54:43 2002
>> ssh is way too slow for cd writing.
>Hm...I think it depends. This is between the machines in question:
>andree@aurich:~/downloads/kernel>scp linux-2.2.17.tar.bz2 jever:
>Password:=20
>linux-2.2.17.tar.bz2 100%
>|************************************************| 13727 KB 00:02
>Between 2 and 3 seconds for 13+MB should be sufficient for CD writing
>don't you think. Or is there a hidden latency problem somewhere?
I don't know, but I know that I have not been able to write a CD from
MacOS X although I was using rscsi and 100 MB/s because MacOS X seems to
have to much IP latency.
RSCSI between 2 Solaris machines gives additional latency < 1 ms.
>A good reason to use ssh/sshd would be encryption of the datastream in
>situations where you want to use it across a non-trusted net.
Do you have such a fast IP connection to your outside?
Inhouse todays networks use switched connections so usually no other
machine "sees" the traffic.
>> If you have a ssh aware rcmd(3) implementation it should work.
>I'll check that out, thanks! Would that give me encryption of the data?
>I fear not, as rcmd is rcmd and doesn't come with encryption...
I believe that FreeBSD has one.
If you like to understand the problem that occures witout using rcmd(3),
just compare remote "tape" speed of "star" and "GNU tar". Star is _much_
faster because it uses rcmd and is not forced to feed two pipes to rsh/ssh.
>That is quite sad to hear as it sounds like triplication of effort. My
>understanding is that iSCSI is an open (?) industry standard which can
>be implemented by anyone. (Well, anyone that understands the matter, ie.
I see no reason to spend my (short) time on iscsi when there is a working
rscsi implementation that may be used on ~ 30 different OS including Cygwin.
Yes, you may use Win32 as remote CD writer server.
>What I really meant with my library question is this: In the SANE world
>you have e.g.=20
>aurich:/usr/bin>ldd xsane
>libsane.so.1 =3D> /usr/lib/libsane.so.1 (0x40014000)
>In other words, the functionality is encapsulated in a library. Wouldn't
>it be nice to have something like:
>aurich:/usr/bin>ldd gtoaster
>libcdrecord.so.1 =3D> /usr/lib/libcdrecord.so.1 (0x40014000)
>I'd dare say that making the cdrecord functionality available as a
>library should have a number of advantages over calling a separate
>program. What is your opinion on this?
It mostly has disadvantages:
- Your calling program needs to run as root.
- Your calling program needs to be under GPL
- Your calling program would need much more about CD writing than
with calling cdrecord.
I see no reason to publish cdrecord under LGPL.
J�rg
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
