[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: performance libssh vs. openssh (was: scp vs. sftp)
[Thread Prev] | [Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: performance libssh vs. openssh (was: scp vs. sftp)
- From: Mikhail Kulinich <tysonite@xxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: libssh@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:53:28 +0400
- To: libssh@xxxxxxxxxx
Hi, You can start on optimization of memory allocation functions. This can be and mostly the root cause of such libraries. 2009/10/20 Vic Lee <llyzs@xxxxxxx> > Hi, > > Do you already have some analysis on this situation already? > > I think the performance also affects the tunneling, which is the > essential feature I am using. I want to help on this but I don't know > where I should start yet. > > Thanks, > > Vic > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 18:17 +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote: > > Hey, > > > > I've tested sftp from openssh against libssh. > > > > openssh: ~8 MB/s > > libssh: ~2 MB/s > > > > We have a serious problem ... > > > > > > > > -- andreas > > > > -- Mikhail
Re: performance libssh vs. openssh | Aris Adamantiadis <aris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
performance libssh vs. openssh (was: scp vs. sftp) | Vic Lee <llyzs@xxxxxxx> |