shanenin Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 A friend and I have been using hamachi to network our computers. we have been able to succesfully use rsync with ssh or plain old scp without rsync to tranfere files back and forth. Since hamachi allows for secure connections we tried to export nfs shares to each other, but this is failing. We are able to export and mount the shares remotely. But when it comes to copying files it just works horrible or not at all. for example, we were able to copy less then one mb of a avi file, then it just froze. We also tried to copy a huge directory of pictures, just a few of the very small amount of pictures transfered then it froze. Any ideas to why nfs is giving such horrible if any performance at all? Link to post Share on other sites
iccaros Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 try using the TCP funtion (see man nfs)to use tcp to mount nfs instaed of UdP. with udp nfs uses RPC to communicate which times out very fast.. note not all Linux NFS support TCP in NFS.. its the only way to get throug ipf filters on solaris as Linux talks backwords in comparison to Solaris NFS. NFS is bad over large latencys.. scp or rcp (since you are encrypting already).. would be faster and more robust.. but so would doing a ftp with the -s option to script the ftp in a fileexampleftp -s ~/ftpconfin ftpconfusernamepasswordcd <foldername>binarymget *quit Link to post Share on other sites
shanenin Posted February 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 (edited) nfs is pobably a bad choice to use for remote computers. rcp might be a good alternative. I tried to emerge rcp, but can't seem to find what pachage it is part of........I just did man rsync. I can do that without using an ssh tunnel(I have been using it with). that is probably the best method to use.edit added later//I just did a quick unscientific experiment. I first copied a directory using rsync not using an ssh tunnel it gave me these resultswrote 195888 bytes read 1420 bytes 7174.84 bytes/sectotal size is 589969 speedup is 2.99then I did the same directorty, but renamed it, using an ssh tunnel for rsyncwrote 195658 bytes read 1420 bytes 8386.30 bytes/sectotal size is 589969 speedup is 2.99the second methed encrypting it twice, once using hamachi and again using ssh was about 15% faster. On a local intranet I bet using ssh would be slower. Edited February 8, 2006 by shanenin Link to post Share on other sites
iccaros Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 nfs is pobably a bad choice to use for remote computers. rcp might be a good alternative. I tried to emerge rcp, but can't seem to find what pachage it is part of........I just did man rsync. I can do that without using an ssh tunnel(I have been using it with). that is probably the best method to use.edit added later//I just did a quick unscientific experiment. I first copied a directory using rsync not using an ssh tunnel it gave me these resultswrote 195888 bytes read 1420 bytes 7174.84 bytes/sectotal size is 589969 speedup is 2.99then I did the same directorty, but renamed it, using an ssh tunnel for rsyncwrote 195658 bytes read 1420 bytes 8386.30 bytes/sectotal size is 589969 speedup is 2.99the second methed encrypting it twice, once using hamachi and again using ssh was about 15% faster. On a local intranet I bet using ssh would be slower.I think the results are a wash.. in other words I do not think that ssh adds alot of overhead.. and it was the diffrence in internet conditions.. I bet if you ran it 100 times they would look the same.. but it may also be that hamachi is using service type and giving ssh a better priority..NFS is a bad choice over a WAN.. LAN its great.. Link to post Share on other sites
shanenin Posted February 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 NFS over a lan kicks ass. I am amazed at how much faster it is then windows file sharing. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts