Re: File system compression, not at the block layer

[Tim Connors]

Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/