Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/sftp-client.c?rev=1.86;content-type=text%2Fx-cvsweb-markup
Note that this is OpenBSD OpenSSH.
The OpenSSH used on every other platform is called OpenSSH-portable
and lives in it's own repository. It has many changes, a
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
Of course this is still really crappy in comparison. Here's a 10MB file:
libssh2: Got 1024 bytes in 17629 ms = 580861.1 bytes/sec spin: 486
openssh: file100% 10MB 9.8MB/s 00:01
17 seconds vs 1!
I checked the code for the openssh
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> Got 1024000 bytes in 9633 ms = 106301.3 bytes/sec spin: 17
> Got 1024000 bytes in 2985 ms = 343048.6 bytes/sec spin: 44
And...
Got 1024000 bytes in 1869 ms = 547886.6 bytes/sec spin: 86
The funny part is that I've not really changed any par
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> Got 1024000 bytes in 9633 ms = 106301.3 bytes/sec spin: 17
An hour of poking and cleaning up code and right now we're at:
Got 1024000 bytes in 2985 ms = 343048.6 bytes/sec spin: 44
The same test program on the same host against the same ser
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> libssh2_sftp_read() got called 2001 times. Why? 10MB in 16KB chunks should
> end up in way way less calls.
Hm, it looks like I did something wrong when I saw those 2001 calls as I now
only see 56 calls. Still no faster transfers though...
Those 56
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> Sure we can compare against any other tool, but I think it makes sense to
> make the comparisons against a single tool just to make it easier for
> ourselves. And I would assume openssh to be fine for that, unless it is
> particularly bad or otherwi
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Borey wrote:
> I do know nothing about SCP based on libSSH2. But openssh SCP is much more
> faster(We did a testing, I can provide results.).
Please do!
> And other sftp implementations too (gnome-vfs2).
Sure we can compare against any other tool, but I think it makes sense
I do know nothing about SCP based on libSSH2. But openssh SCP is much more
faster(We did a testing, I can provide results.).
And other sftp implementations too (gnome-vfs2).
I do not think that libSSH2 simplicity and small size are the reasons that
libSSH2 is slower than other implementations.
Ma
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> How hard would be to redesign libSSH2 code to enhance SFTP performance ?
>
> How big is the difference between a plain and simple libssh2-based SFTP
> download program and for example the openssh sftp tool if you download on a
> local LAN (or even l
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Borey wrote:
> How hard would be to redesign libSSH2 code to enhance SFTP performance ?
How big is the difference between a plain and simple libssh2-based SFTP
download program and for example the openssh sftp tool if you download on a
local LAN (or even localhost)?
--
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Borey wrote:
> How hard would be to redesign libSSH2 code to enhance SFTP performance ?
To be more specific, I trust you're speaking about SFTP download performance,
right? I recall someone mentioning that it does upload a lot faster.
> This is a quite important for our pro
11 matches
Mail list logo
