←back to thread

532 points tempaccount420 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
s-macke ◴[] No.45396881[source]
It is not faster in this sense. However, an SSH connection can have multiple substreams, especially for port forwarding. Over a single classical connection, this can lead to head-of-line blocking, where an issue in one stream slows everything down. QUIC/HTTP3 protocol can solve this.
replies(2): >>45398048 #>>45401658 #
thayne ◴[] No.45398048[source]
Does this implementation do that do, or does it just use a single h3 stream?
replies(1): >>45398330 #
1. s-macke ◴[] No.45398330[source]
The answer is yes according to code and documentation [0]:

> The stream multiplexing capabilities of QUIC allow reducing the head-of-line blocking that SSHv2 encounters when multiplexing several SSH channels over the same TCP connection

....

> Each channel runs over a bidirectional HTTP/3 stream and is attached to a single remote terminal session

[0] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-michel-remote-terminal...