www.libssh2.org | Daily snapshots | Mailing list archive | Docs | Examples

Archive Index This month's Index

Subject: Re: [libssh2] daily snapshots

Re: [libssh2] daily snapshots

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:24:57 +0100 (CET)

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Mononen Jussi wrote:

> I've discussed this with Sara long time ago and she agreed that an
> asynchronous transfer would be a better choice, performance wise

Eh, how exactly would that be better ? And if so, how would that work?

> Also the current synchronous transfer is extremely inefficient because
> everything is read in in 16 (!) byte blocks. The block size should be at
> least 16 kilobytes.

Indeed!

> Current libssh2 implementation is almost 70-80% 50% slower than OpenSSH
> command line sftp/scp. When the block size is increased to 16kb, the
> performance is appr. 33% better, but libssh2 is still roughly 50% slower
> than its command line counterparts due to the synchronised approach.

Again, what is synchronised that shouldn't? Please forgive me if this is
obvious, but I'm somewhat of a SSH internals newbie.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
libssh2-devel mailing list
libssh2-devel_at_lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libssh2-devel
Received on 2006-11-15

the libssh2 team