| 1 |
It brings me great joy to know that my original post has spawned such |
| 2 |
madness. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
:-) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
John Jolet wrote: |
| 7 |
>> I read something some time ago that suggested if you transfer a |
| 8 |
>> compressed file over a compressed SFTP connection, for example, that it |
| 9 |
>> would take longer to transfer the data versus if only the data or the |
| 10 |
>> connection was compressed. The reason, as I recall, had to do with |
| 11 |
>> compressing already compressed data--this apparently created some |
| 12 |
>> overhead on the connection. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Did you look at this situation in your tests? If so, what were the |
| 15 |
>> results? |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> No, I see absolutely no reason to use sftp. Just scp. By default, |
| 18 |
> compression is off on that, unless you've modified your ssh_conf. |
| 19 |
> But I have heard the same thing about doubly-compressing things. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> -- |
| 22 |
>> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Han Solo: |
| 28 |
Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting |
| 29 |
crops, boy. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives