On 27 Jul 2012, at 08:34, Tixy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 22:16 +0100, mick wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:47:47 +0100 >> Tixy <[email protected]> allegedly wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 20:39 +0100, mick wrote: >>>> Depends what you mean by "fast". But in real world usage (pulling a >>>> video file from store) it is about three times faster than an NSLU2. >>>> Consider the following tests using scp to grab a 1.1 GB video file >>>> (so some overhead in the encryption as opposed to a straight wire >>>> copy) >>> >>> In my experience the encryption and other overheads from ssh are a bit >>> more than 'some'. Just tested a big file copy from my Sheevaplug and I >>> get 6MB/s from scp, and 38MB/s over nfs. >>> >> >> :-) >> >> Yep - but both devices were treated the same. >> >> The point is the comparison between the two devices. The slug has a >> slow CPU, little memory and slow networking hardware. The DNS is >> faster (but not, I'll concede, "fast"). > > True. I guess the point I was thinking of is that when using ssh things > may well be limited by CPU performance, which, if the usecase you care > about is a NAS using say nfa, then something with a slower CPU but > better i/o (disk, network) may be more suitable. > > I'm not saying that this is the case for the devices under discussion, > just putting it forward as a consideration.
Even powerful modern x86 boxes are still CPU bound with scp so as Tixy says adding scp to the mix complicates the testing. For example I get roughly USB2 wire-speed (30mb/s ish) from my iconnect over iscsi, AoE or nfs but much slower if I use scp or rsync over ssh. -- Sent from a mobile device Tim Fletcher -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
