(no subject)

Archaic archaic at indy.rr.com
Wed Mar 10 18:32:26 PST 2004

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:51:02AM -0600, Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 23:22, Archaic wrote:
> > 
> > I don't buy that as a wholesale statement. Every single time I've ever
> > used sftp or scp on a large file, the transfer time was hideous compared
> > to straight ftp. If I need something to travel the pipes encrypted, then
> > fine. Otherwise I'll stick to ftp (or more likely http since I don't
> > have tons of stuff laying around for public consumption of my
> > bandwidth).
> You using 486SX's?  I get ~5MB/s over scp here all the time.

Sometimes. :) Notice how I worded my statement. I didn't say less bps. I
said transfer time. This includes extra CPU cycles, and a bigger overall
download. Both of which can slow things down considerably based on one's
pipe and proc. I don't think it would be wise to assume everyone runs a
P3 or better on a fat broadband. Esspecially linux companies who like
the fact that they've been able to slow down their hardware upgrade
cycle. After all, ability to run well on slower hardware is a huge
selling point.


Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person.  He might
start thinking he knows what's right for you.

- Paul Williams, `Das Energi'

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list