[svlug] ssh.com's ssh versus OpenSSH
Aaron T Porter
atporter at primate.net
Wed Oct 15 11:06:27 PDT 2003
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:49:19AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > rsync is quite chatty. Over high latency, or asymmetric links, a plain
> > scp really can be faster.
> Depends on what you're doing, and/or how much replication you've got in
> your file tree. I've used straight tar to duplicate a system across a
> link (tar czvf - | ssh remote tar xzvf - ), when I know none of the
> local files exist. If you've got any substantial data and a minimal
> changeset, rsync tends to win. I could see a smaller set of data on a
> high-latency link being slow, but that would have to be a pretty high
Or a larger set of data in a huge number of small files, or on a
CPU taxed system... But yes, it definately depends on what you're doing.
One thing I do miss from Ylonen's ssh (at least in the pre-openssh days)
was -cnone. On local network links where encryption wasn't a huge concern,
it sure was nice. Blowfish isn't too bad on a modern cpu though.
More information about the svlug