On Jun 30 14:23, Brian Ford wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Warren Young wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
What's still not clear is why the ssh process takes so much CPU.
Too many buffer copies? It takes a surprising amount of CPU power to
fill a gigabit pipe from userland. Double or
Anyway, using ssh/scp with the latest from CVS looks much better now.
It doesn't eat up all CPU anymore and the performance looks pretty
well as far as I can tell.
Are these changes captured in the 2009/06/30 snapshot?
Chris
--
Chris Sutcliffe
http://emergedesktop.org
--
Problem reports:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 30 14:23, Brian Ford wrote:
Even more so for context switches ;-):
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2007-10/msg00040.html
although this performance penalty was removed from read/write and friends:
On Jul 1 10:23, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
Anyway, using ssh/scp with the latest from CVS looks much better now.
It doesn't eat up all CPU anymore and the performance looks pretty
well as far as I can tell.
Are these changes captured in the 2009/06/30 snapshot?
Mostly. Just try it and
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:23:14AM -0400, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
Anyway, using ssh/scp with the latest from CVS looks much better now.
It doesn't eat up all CPU anymore and the performance looks pretty
well as far as I can tell.
Are these changes captured in the 2009/06/30 snapshot?
The 6/30
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Just try it and report what happens for you.
I'm seeing similar results to your above benchmarks now, with 20090701:
upload: 30 MB/s
download: 47 MB/s
This on the Vista-64 machine that was seeing the original reported
problem of near-instant 100%
On Jun 29 12:59, Warren Young wrote:
I scp'd a 1.6 GB file back and forth to a Linux server over GigE to a
fast new RAID-10. I tested 1.7.0-50 and 20090629.
Results:
On a 32-bit XP box, 1.7.0-50 gives about 15 MByte/sec for both upload
and download. (This box can't really hit GigE
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
What's still not clear is why the ssh process takes so much CPU.
Too many buffer copies? It takes a surprising amount of CPU power to
fill a gigabit pipe from userland. Double or triple that workload with
unnecessary copies, and there goes your transfer rate,
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Warren Young wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
What's still not clear is why the ssh process takes so much CPU.
Too many buffer copies? It takes a surprising amount of CPU power to
fill a gigabit pipe from userland. Double or triple that workload with
unnecessary
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:23:48AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:53:22AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 29 11:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 28 15:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Btw, Corinna, were you proposing turning the FIXME code in peek_pipe
back on?
The snapshot will be available at http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ with today's
(2009-06-29) date.
I have tested with a 695 MB file and validated that scp and lftp work
as expected with a constant throughput.
Chris
--
Chris Sutcliffe
http://emergedesktop.org
--
Problem reports:
I scp'd a 1.6 GB file back and forth to a Linux server over GigE to a
fast new RAID-10. I tested 1.7.0-50 and 20090629.
Results:
On a 32-bit XP box, 1.7.0-50 gives about 15 MByte/sec for both upload
and download. (This box can't really hit GigE speeds due to crappy
cabling and a
12 matches
Mail list logo
