From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 28 16:38:08 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3891065674 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 16:38:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979C38FC28 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 16:38:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-65-8.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.65.8]) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D4C16C00B9; Thu, 28 May 2009 18:38:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n4SGc1Sq006336; Thu, 28 May 2009 18:38:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:38:01 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Kirk Strauser Message-Id: <20090528183801.82b36bbb.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <200905280904.44025.kirk@strauser.com> References: <200905281030.n4SAUXdA046386@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th> <200905280847.12966.kirk@strauser.com> <200905280904.44025.kirk@strauser.com> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Wojciech Puchar , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Remotely edit user disk quota X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:38:09 -0000 On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:04:43 -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote: > Well, I can transfer 25MB/s between hosts on the LAN without my CPU ever > breaking 10% CPU usage. I'm of the opinion that most people don't need to > optimize for CPU in such cases when the security payoffs are so great. As Wojciech pointed out correctly before, security is only as good as the weakest point. Of course you can add security by using SSH, and it's definitely indicated when doing things via the Internet. As long as you are inside your own net, covered from the Internet, with only trustworthy machines inside it, you could even use telnet. Connecting systems by a security tunnel that already adds means of cryptography, and you consider this tunnel to be secure enough, the above situation applies. But you can always SSH inside a security tunnel, if you want. It just increases security. "The more the better." :-) At the point where this "the more" generates so much overhead that things are lagging, stalling or just work much too slow, or slower than they should, you can re-thing the situation. -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...