Re: very poor cygwin scp performance in some situations

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Mar 28 10:32, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 28 09:57, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > > All of the above will probably need to be suggested to the OpenSSH team
> > > (preferably in the form of patches).  Volunteers welcome (nudge-nudge,
> > > wink-wink, Steve). :-)
> >
> > You don't seriously believe that stuff like that hasn't been already
> > suggested a couple of times, do you?  Read again what I said about
> > the developers stance on security vs. performance and what I said about
> > the HSN patch.
> 
> I did read it.  The HSN patch is *much* more drastic than what I was
> proposing.  Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see any impact on security from
> changing the buffer size (as long as buffer overflows are properly
> addressed).  After all, that buffer is used to store *encrypted* data,
> right?
> 
> Well, one way to find out is to post an actual patch to the openssh list
> and get flamed... :-)  Perhaps one of these days I'll get a round tuit.

One reason to get flamed would be the fact that you would add command
line options.  New options to ssh would only be added reluctantly and
new options to scp would probably be refused right away.  So the
buffer size would have to become config file entries and I'm not sure
what they would say about that.

But why add this when a patch to solve the problem is already available?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat