On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:59:30PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Ben Woods wrote this message on Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 15:40 +0800:
> > On Wednesday, 11 November 2015, Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > On 11/10/15 9:52 AM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > > > My vote is to remove the HPN patches. First, the NONE cipher made more
> > > > sense back when we didn't have AES-NI widely available, and you were
> > > > seriously limited by it's performance. Now we have both aes-gcm and
> > > > chacha-poly which it's performance should be more than acceptable for
> > > > today's uses (i.e. cipher performance is 2GB/sec+).
> > >
> > > AES-NI doesn't help the absurdity of double-encrypting when using scp or
> > > rsync/ssh over an encrypted VPN, which is where NONE makes sense to use
> > > for me.
> > I have to agree that there are cases when the NONE cipher makes sense, and
> > it is up to the end user to make sure they know what they are doing.
> > Personally I have used it at home to backup my old FreeBSD server (which
> > does not have AESNI) over a dedicated network connection to a backup server
> > using rsync/ssh. Since it was not possible for anyone else to be on that
> > local network, and the server was so old it didn't have AESNI and would
> > soon be retired, using the NONE cipher sped up the transfer significantly.
> If you have a trusted network, why not just use nc?
I think you kidding:
- scp need only one command on initiator side and
no additional setup on target. simple, well know.
- nc need additional work on target, need synchronization for file
names with target, also need ssh to target for start, etc... Too
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"