Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:15:56 +0100 From: "Daniel A." <ldrada@gmail.com> To: gh <u3mgh@utanet.at> Cc: Xn Nooby <xnooby@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WinSCP mega-slowness Message-ID: <5ceb5d550603010515n26d2399q40ef7223f872a483@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200603011325.50909.u3mgh@utanet.at> References: <bdf25fde0602192305m6fff3734x3333c3e1a41e3cf2@mail.gmail.com> <5ceb5d550602200404v66aa5f89y147658431957bf9a@mail.gmail.com> <200603011325.50909.u3mgh@utanet.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/1/06, gh <u3mgh@utanet.at> 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, when I use FTP or SMB to transfer files, I can > > utilize the maximum bandwith. > > > > On both boxes, the "symptoms" are the same: > > - Lots of available CPU time > > - No significant disk I/O > > - Quite a lot of available RAM. > > but SFTP (WinSCP) is a crypted transfer (ssh tunnel) > therefor it must be slower than > any uncrypted transfer like FTP or samba .... Yes, but one tenth? I would understand the speed difference if at least the encryption required either a lot of CPU time or memory utilization, but the fact is that it doesnt. In fact, my PC is practically idle while it's transferring files through sftp. I believe that fbsd_user (at a1poweruser.com) is correct about the different buffer size being the cause of this problem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5ceb5d550603010515n26d2399q40ef7223f872a483>