Messages in this thread | | | From | Tim Connors <> | Subject | Re: File system compression, not at the block layer | Date | Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:17:26 +1000 |
| |
Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> said on Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:52:37 +0200: > Hi! > > > > I've always felt that way, but every time I mention it, people tell me > > > it's not worth the CPU overhead. For many years, I have felt that there > > > should be an IP socket type which was inherently compressed. > > > > Ever heard of ssh? ;) > > Its too high level, and if you want compression but not encryption > that's tricky to do.
Just today we were trying to transfer ~350GB from a shell of a machine (running knopix, with a very small amount of installed software, and absolutely no disk space left) holding 4 disks to our raid disks -- the only thing installed was ssh, with even rsh being a symlink to ssh (I was going to remove a whole bunch of packages to free up some space so I could install rsh, but they didn't let me - it took them long enough to get it to "work" in the first place).
Problem was that rsync combined with ssh was reading/writing at about 2MB/sec, given the age of the CPU. That will take a day more than they have.
To put it bluntly, ssh is a *shit* solution on a secured net where people care about performance.
-- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ White dwarf seeks red giant star for binary relationship - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |