What is the general recommendation for compression when using ssh? Is it a wasteful performance hit to have both ssh and rsync do compression (when using rsync over ssh)? If so, is there a clear prefference which is more efficient, rsync or ssh? Brian K. White -- brian@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/ +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++. filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:51:53AM -0400, Brian K. White wrote:> What is the general recommendation for compression when using ssh?Use rsync's compression.> Is it a wasteful performance hit to have both ssh and rsync do compression > (when using rsync over ssh)?Yes.> If so, is there a clear prefference which is more efficient, rsync or ssh?Yes. -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws Remember Cernan and Schmitt
Donovan Baarda wrote:>>Any actual reason not to do that? >> >> >rsync can use what I refer to in pysync as "context compression". This >is where the matching data is compressed even though the matching >compressed data is not transmitted (because the other end already has >it). This "primes" the compressor with context information. My tests >with pysync show that this can improve compression on real-world data by >20% or more. > >Great! I didn't know that =) In that case, rsync -z is *really* better than ssh -C -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini lapo@lapo.it (PGP & X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)