This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: very poor cygwin scp performance in some situations
- From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:52:26 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: very poor cygwin scp performance in some situations
- References: <04b601c651b4$a1e9e020$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20060328074041.GJ20907@calimero.vinschen.de> <01f501c65254$796572e0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20060328143952.GN20907@calimero.vinschen.de> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0603280951550.18642@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <20060328151209.GO20907@calimero.vinschen.de> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0603281027550.18642@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <20060328154451.GP20907@calimero.vinschen.de>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 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.
Still probably worth trying...
> But why add this when a patch to solve the problem is already available?
Because the patch requires recompilation, whereas the config option does
not?
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"