rsync can use ssh, you don't need to set up rsh/rlogin. Plus, it's encrypted that way, and you can tell it to use compression for faster speeds (if you're already transferring compressed files, you won't see a speed increase). Jay > -----Original Message----- > From: karl bongers [mailto:kbongers at infinetivity.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 11:44 PM > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: [TCLUG] Why my NFS is so darn slow > > > Sorry about interrupting you, Ben, during your kernel hacking > session at the meeting. Isn't this illegal? Hacking the > kernel in a public place? First he shows us this neat > /dev/config.tgz patch, then shows off his T3 connection speed > at the U and downloads 2.4.19 in .01 seconds, geez. Some > people have all the fun. > > So after seeing this showmanship(kinda like a kid > and a fast car) I shouted out that I can't get a 200 MB > file from box A to box B ten feet away in less than > 5 minutes. Thats with 100MB ethernet. > > Anyways, after making myself sound like a complete idiot, > (and thankfully Ben diverted attention away from me) > I went home bound and determined to figure out what was > wrong. > > It turns out that one of my boxes is dropping ethernet > packets, ifconfig showed them plain as the nose > on my face. > > So the next question is "why was NFS so darn slow, yet > a TCP throughput test showed good results?". Also scp > could transfer files much faster. > > Turns out NFS uses UDP instead of TCP, and has a > slow default retry timeout. Add to mount -otimeo=1 helped > a lot. I really need to swap out the bad NIC card(8139too.o) > as the proper fix. > > So why did they implement NFS using UDP? This just seems > goofy to me. Theres an option to run NFS on TCP, > but it's not the default. > > I was putting up with this for way too long, mostly because > I reached my limit on hassles to contend with. "I don't > want to debug this now, all I want to do is get this lousy > video file from box A to box B ten feet away." So I used scp, > although that seems stupid in the privacy of your own > basement. but what else is there? ftp, http? Those seem > stupid too. Rsync? That sounds good "BZZZZ" you lose, can't > do rsync(without -e ssh, or setting up a rsync > server) with a few stock RH boxes. > > To further punish myself, I figure I'd get rsync working. > This meant getting rsh, rlogin working, which I've never > setup. This sure was a pain, man pages for rcp, rlogin > don't tell you how to set it up. My two books "redhat 6 > unleashed" and "Unix complete" failed me miserably. Thank god > for the internet where I found instructions on how to setup > ~/.rhosts and /etc/hosts.equiv. And a few hours later, after > figuring out the permissions on these config files had to be > set just right, it was working! > > I just love how the man page for rlogin says: > "Rlogin will be replaced by telnet in the near future". > Who's the maintainer of rlogin, I want to complain about > the doc, and ask for my money back. > > I'll try out this netcat thing soon, as it sounds like > a hip tool. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. > Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-> linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >