Copying files via SCP over the network is slug slow
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Copying files via SCP over the network is slug slow

  1. #1
    The Prancing Pirate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    548

    Copying files via SCP over the network is slug slow

    Hi,

    I'm trying to copy some files from an old computer over to a newer one (with more space). The older one is running Windows XP Pro, the newer one SLICK/SUPER (a stripped down version of openSUSE 10.0). I have set up an SSH server on the SUSE box, and I downloaded PuTTY on the Windows XP Pro computer to transfer the files over to it.

    Here's an example command I used:
    pscp c:\file.tgz idiot@192.168.1.101:/home/idiot/

    The two computers are connected via a router. Both have 10/100 Mbps NICs, and are connected to the router via cat5s. So, technically I should be getting transfer speeds near 100 Mbps. The only problem is that, in reality, the transfer is going at a pathetic 46 Kbps - so, as you can imagine, copying the 3.8 GB of files from one PC to the other will take a few days at this rate.

    Is it going so slowly because I am encrypting the files, or is there something else on the network that I am overlooking which is hindering the transfer? There are only 3 computers on the LAN - the two I've already mentioned, and another laptop which I'm typing this from. Ethereal is taking its time to download here as well, so I won't be able to perform any checkups until the download finishes..

    Thanks in advance,

    -jk
    TAZForum <---- click

  2. #2
    AO Senior Cow-beller
    Moderator
    zencoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Mountain standard tribe.
    Posts
    1,177
    Well, performance of the slug-slow XP box might be to blame. You also imply that it is nearly full...whats the CPU load and swap usage like on the XP box? That may have a lot to do with it being slow, particularly for a function that is encrypting payloads before it sends them.

    Maybe encrypting the whole 3.8 Gb tarball (grimace) and sending it in the clear would be faster? Faster might still be relative, though.
    "Data is not necessarily information. Information does not necessarily lead to knowledge. And knowledge is not always sufficient to discover truth and breed wisdom." --Spaf
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
    "...people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

  3. #3
    The Prancing Pirate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    548
    Well, the 'old' computer isn't actually that old - it's got 1 GB of RAM, a 3.0 Ghz Pent 4 processor and an array of other niceties. But, it is getting a bit too clogged up, so I'm backing everything up and reinstalling (probably Linux this time). The computer isn't slow, per se, but there are so many files that it's quite confusing. So, I don't think the computer's to blame here (sorry for making it sound like that ).

    I was thinking of packaging it all up together and sending it as one - but that would also involve compressing a load of files which are already separately compressed, and StuffIt isn't too eager to let me do so. Unpacking them all and then tar + bzipping again might take quite a while :P

    Thanks,

    -jk
    TAZForum <---- click

  4. #4
    AO Senior Cow-beller
    Moderator
    zencoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Mountain standard tribe.
    Posts
    1,177
    Not sure then...I always turn off that QoS crap in XP (on the network connection properties...where the TCP/IP and Wins settings are), and make sure there's nothing throttling on the SUSE side. Hard to diagnose over a forum, sorry. Hands on, I might be able to finger it out.
    "Data is not necessarily information. Information does not necessarily lead to knowledge. And knowledge is not always sufficient to discover truth and breed wisdom." --Spaf
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
    "...people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

  5. #5
    The Prancing Pirate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    548
    I tried disabling QoS - no faster, no slower. It is quite a difficult issue to solve over a forum.. Maybe I could post up an Ethereal dump from the SUSE server, or from the Win XP box? Would that help?
    TAZForum <---- click

  6. #6
    AO Senior Cow-beller
    Moderator
    zencoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Mountain standard tribe.
    Posts
    1,177
    Doubtful. I'd be there with you troubleshooting more by osmosis than keen insight.
    "Data is not necessarily information. Information does not necessarily lead to knowledge. And knowledge is not always sufficient to discover truth and breed wisdom." --Spaf
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
    "...people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

  7. #7
    Right turn Clyde Nokia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Button Moon
    Posts
    1,696
    Is it definatly CAT-5 cable you are using?? Sounds like you may have a half-duplex set-up with losing that much bandwidth?
    Drugs have taught an entire generation of kids the metric system.

    http://tazforum.**********.com/

  8. #8
    The Prancing Pirate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    548
    Ah, ok then

    Nokia, I'm almost certain they are Cat 5 cables. But you may be right - it doesn't sound plausible? I've had much faster transfer rates over the network before. Come back a month later and, what do you know, it's going slower than 56k

    If there are any tests you want me to try, or gather any info, then I'll gladly do it - I really hope I can resolve this, as the transfer process is painful. I can't do it by CD-R's, as some of the files are too big to fit (even when compressed); plus, the DVD writer seems to work solely with American DVD-R's, because I purchased it in the US. I don't know why, but it just refuses to record on European DVD's.. But that's another issue for another day

    Thanks again, and if you've got any last tricks I can try please let me know.

    -jk
    TAZForum <---- click

  9. #9
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,178
    Yeah,

    Why not pull the hard drive, mount it as a slave on the target box and do the transfer there?

    KISS?

    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  10. #10
    The Prancing Pirate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    548
    I referred to the Win XP one as a box

    It's actually a laptop - it has those specs, but it's a laptop not a box. And it is getting clogged up, so I'm backing the necessities up and then I'm going to wipe the drive. I would use an external hard drive to transfer the files, but I don't have it here with me - and I won't be able to get it for another month

    But even then, that would not resolve the slow transfer speeds over the network. If it is really that slow, then surely the advantages provided by broadband are also being reduced, because the transfer speed is &lt;56k even though I have 256k ADSL?
    TAZForum <---- click

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides