Toru TSUNEYOSHI <[email protected]> writes: >> And why have you increased `tramp-copy-size-limit'? Are there >> performance problems with the default value? > > (In my former message) > > ;; with compress > => "6.61 secs" > => "4.516 secs" > > ;; with pscp instead of plink > => "19.338 secs" > => "13.209 secs" > => "8.152 secs" > => "8.422 secs" > => "5.828 secs" > > According to the above result of my test (file size is 613kB), `plink' > with compress is faster than `pscp'. And copy by `plink' don't need > `login'.
That's true for text files. For binary files, compress won't decrease the file size remarkable. > In the other hand, if we use `pscp', by default, we must input password > whenever `login' by the case. I don't know the way of automatic login > without password input well. Maybe I need to read `info' for Tramp > later, I think. (info "(tramp)Password handling") In your case, I would recommend (setq password-cache t) If possible, you might also try "scpc" or "rsyncc" methods. Those methods reuse existing ssh connections for the copy operation. I haven't found a similar feature in pscp yet, unfortunately. > But, if any part of the patch is effective, plese make use of it. I will check further. Maybe you are right, and inline compression is more effective than scp/pscp. But it needs some more description in the manual, how a user shall tune it. > Thanks, Michael san. (san: honorific title in Japanese) Thanks for your contribution, Toru san! Best regards, Michael. _______________________________________________ Tramp-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tramp-devel
