Not to stir up a hornet's nest of debate, but I've been testing ssh1 and
ssh2 in both static mode and inetd mode to determine if we want to move to
static mode as we bring up a new server in the near future. The tests are
from an old, but reliable Sparc10 (pat, pat, good boy) to a new Enterprise
250 running dual UltraSparcII CPUs. What I'm subjectively finding is...
1. Running sshd1 statically clearly presents a significant reduction of
wait time over inetd mode. The key bit-size is 768. Static mode wins.
2. Running sshd2 statically presents *no* reduction of wait time over
sshd2 in inetd. Key bit-size is 1024. So, it appears superficially that
sshd2's larger key negates any enhancement created by running sshd2 in
static mode. As well, I do not see any way of reducing this size in the
man page for sshd2 (no -b option presented) as is possible with sshd1. Am
I missing something here? Also, since multiple requests to a static sshd
daemon result in multiple forked child processes, how is this superior to
multiple daemon processees spawned by inetd? I'm ready to switch to static
mode, but I need my curiosity satisfied first.
Thanks and Regards,
Chris
###############################################################
# Chris Vandersip #
# Computer Research Specialist/Dept. Sysadmin #
# Rm. 024, Dept. of Meteorology, Florida State University #
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] (850)644-2522 #
###############################################################
