4 ms·

I find it slightly weird to test different protocols like that, especially the SCP test, where the author states: "With SCP, we transfer the 10GB random file o

I find it slightly weird to test different protocols like that, especially the SCP test, where the author states: "With SCP, we transfer the 10GB random file over scp using OpenSSH server and client. We can clearly see that even bare-metal performance are much lower than previously." SCP is just notoriously slow, and it should be expected to not be able to max out the connection with it.

chrismeller 8y ago
No one is saying you should use SCP for anything or that it's an alternative to any of the others - none of the tested protocols are practical alternatives to each other. It was included to provide a comparison point for the encrypted version of WeaveNet. Encrypted WeaveNet handled plain TCP traffic at 1,330 Mbit/s. Without the SCP comparison there's no way to tell whether that's really really good or really really bad. Seeing that the unencrypted version of WeaveNet handled SCP at 1,594 Mbit/s shows that it's not horrible, but could probably be better. It's good for WeaveNet folks to know they have some room for improvement and it's good for you because you might want to consider alternatives if you require encrypted traffic and are very bandwidth sensitive.
- bboreham 8y ago
  [Note I work on Weave Net] When we ran a similar test we got 3.75Gbit/sec; the figure in this article is closer to what we got in our "slow mode" which is used as a fall-back when it can't get the in-kernel path to work. https://www.weave.works/blog/weave-net-performance-fast-datapath/ https://www.weave.works/blog/weave-net-performance-fast-data...