←back to thread

532 points tempaccount420 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Zambyte ◴[] No.45396281[source]
I was skeptical of the claim that it's faster than traditional SSH, but the README specifies that it is faster at establishing a connection, and that active connections are the same speed. That makes a lot of sense and seems like a reasonable claim to make.
replies(9): >>45396495 #>>45396529 #>>45396639 #>>45396881 #>>45400344 #>>45400909 #>>45400915 #>>45403285 #>>45410927 #
notepad0x90 ◴[] No.45396639[source]
Although, dollars-to-donuts my bet is that this tool/protocol is much faster than SSH over high-latency links, simply by virtue of using UDP. Not waiting for ack's before sending more data might be a significant boost for things like scp'ing large files from part of the world to the another.
replies(6): >>45396713 #>>45396823 #>>45397014 #>>45397091 #>>45397195 #>>45402450 #
1. fanf2 ◴[] No.45397091[source]
Yeah, there’s a replacement for scp that uses ssh for setup and QUIC for bulk data transfer, which is much faster over high-latency paths.

https://github.com/crazyscot/qcp