NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
Robert Mullenax wrote: > I do a lot of ftp and LDM, but I have never benchmarked them. I will> say that in my mind if all you are doing is sending files from one machine
> to another and not doing anything on the receiving end the maybe> LDM is not the best thing. It's strength in my mind is pqact..the ability
> to send data to another machine and be able to kick off many different > processes on the receiving end as the data comes in. >Actually, I do want to use this feature of pqact, but I don't think I can afford the overhead of using LDM.
David Wojtowicz wrote:
At 4:19 PM -0600 3/29/2002, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:as an additional, but not objectively confirmed datapoint, scp and sftp perform faster for me than ftp between identical machines.scp/sftp typically compress the data before encrypting it though the default setting varies by platform/version. Over a slow connection but using fast machines this can greatly increase transfer rates if your data is compressible by a large amount. If the machine is slow and the network fast, then the overhead of the compression can actually slow things down. compression can be enabled/disabled by command line options.
I forgot to mention in my original post that the data was already compressed (gzipped tar file).
-- Joe VanAndel National Center for Atmospheric Research http://www.atd.ucar.edu/~vanandel/ Internet: vanandel@xxxxxxxx
ldm-users archives: