On Monday 20 February 2006 13:04, Daniel A. wrote:
Hi,
I have the same issue here.
When I use SFTP (WinSCP) to transfer from my Windows XP SP2 box to my
local server, I can only utilize about 1/10'th of the bandwith
(100mbit).
On the other hand, when I use FTP or SMB to transfer files, I can
On 3/1/06, gh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 20 February 2006 13:04, Daniel A. wrote:
Hi,
I have the same issue here.
When I use SFTP (WinSCP) to transfer from my Windows XP SP2 box to my
local server, I can only utilize about 1/10'th of the bandwith
(100mbit).
On the other hand,
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 14:15, Daniel A. wrote:
On 3/1/06, gh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 20 February 2006 13:04, Daniel A. wrote:
Hi,
I have the same issue here.
When I use SFTP (WinSCP) to transfer from my Windows XP SP2 box to my
local server, I can only utilize about
On 2/20/06, Xn Nooby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For about a year I have noticed that whenever my Windows boxes talk to my
Unix boxes, they communicate at about 1/10 normal speed. I copy lots (300GB)
of large files back and forth between machines as I try different OS's, and
I always see this.
Well, it's good to know I'm not the only one seing this. Right now both
machines are running FreeBSD, since I gave up on waiting for Windows to copy
the files. The CPU load on Window when sending 1 meg per second is usually
about 30%, while the Unix box is only at 1-2%. When I have 2 Unix boxes
Well, it's good to know I'm not the only one seing this. Right now both
machines are running FreeBSD, since I gave up on waiting for Windows to
copy
the files. The CPU load on Window when sending 1 meg per second is
usually
about 30%, while the Unix box is only at 1-2%. When I have 2 Unix
Hi,
I have the same issue here.
When I use SFTP (WinSCP) to transfer from my Windows XP SP2 box to my
local server, I can only utilize about 1/10'th of the bandwith
(100mbit).
On the other hand, when I use FTP or SMB to transfer files, I can
utilize the maximum bandwith.
On both boxes, the
I can try that. I'm not sure how to use Samba3, though. I was trying to
help a friend use Samba, but I was use to Sama2, and Samba3 apparently
recquires a smb.conf file. You use to be able to just do everything from
the command line, like (I think):
smbclient //server/share /mnt/pnt -o
Hate to do a me too, but I gotta agree.
I did the same file transfer using cygwin's scp and winscp and cygwin was
about 10x faster.
On 2/20/06, Xn Nooby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For about a year I have noticed that whenever my Windows boxes talk to my
Unix boxes, they communicate at
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 2:16 PM
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: WinSCP mega-slowness
Hate to do a me too, but I gotta agree.
I did the same file transfer using cygwin's scp and winscp and cygwin
was
about 10x faster.
On 2/20/06, Xn Nooby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
at
http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin
Hepworth
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 2:16 PM
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: WinSCP mega-slowness
Hate to do a me too
On 2/21/06, Xn Nooby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
would doing a 'make install clean' inside /usr/ports/security/hpn-ssh fix
the default scp program?
You should install hpn-ssh on both hosts. There's a
windows binary available on the website.
___
12 matches
Mail list logo
