On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 14:25, Alan Horn wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Ow Mun Heng wrote: > > > > > https would add additional Overhead though. It's not mentioned, does > > cavader actually mounts that as a shared drive/folder? > > It's true that https would add the overhead of SSL. If you don't care > about your data being intercepted and read by others, don't use https. I > would classify that as 'A Bad Idea' however. The overhead of SSL is not > significant with modern CPUs, and the bandwidth percentage is not that big > a deal either. If you're in _exceptionally_ low bandwidth situations (e.g. > mobile phone/9600/14400 baud territory) then you would need to assess that > more closely. true.. Well right now, using samba is also w/o encryption. I just managed to find out how "fast" it is. I just did a port forwarding with Compression using SSH they way satish mentioned, and used tcptrack to measure the connection speed as I copy a file from my local drive to the mount point I see transfer of like 4KB/s. Now, that's bad. SCP can get me like 100+KB/s > Cadaver is a webdav client for unix command line. It functions similarly > to a command line FTP client in look and feel. It doesn't mount the > filesystem as a shared drive/folder. Then how does one access the file system? If it's just like FTP then It's not gonna be v useful. Right now, I'm on a Linux Box connecting to another LInux Samba File server > However, you were talking about _windows_ earlier, no ? If you're mounting > filesystems on a unix box there are far wider (and richer) choices > available to you. There are?? I tried NFS/SMB/SSH w Samba. If using windows, I might be able to get away using remote folders. (I think) Have not researched enough into it
