Operating System - HP-UX
1748027 Members
4234 Online
108757 Solutions
New Discussion юеВ

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

 
SOLVED
Go to solution
Gary L
Super Advisor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

Thanks OldSchool.

Thanks Rick again.

Yes, currently, this data transfer job spends around 3 or more hours per day. It was set in crontab job and started at 4:00 a.m., it looks like a little bit long, so that's the resson why I asked NFS vs. SFTP which one is faster.

Queston for Rick, could you provide me more details about IPSEC, like how to set it and how to get this ... is it network side or HP-UX server side? "running NFS over IPSEC..."

thanks.

-Gary
rick jones
Honored Contributor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

I am afraid I do not know the specifics of enabling IPSEC - one or more of the UX or networking manuals at https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/home  should discuss it. I take it you are making these transfers over a network not entirely under your control?

there is no rest for the wicked yet the virtuous have no pillows
Gary L
Super Advisor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

searching IPSEC ...

Thanks a lot.

Have a good day.

-G
Dave Olker
HPE Pro

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

If security is a concern and you're running 11i v3 you can use Secure NFS. That leverages Kerberos security and allows you to either enforce:

o Kerberos Authentication
o Send & Receive Data Checksums
o End-to-end Data Encryption and Checksums

Of course adding any kind of security will "impact" performance (Hi Rick - he hates that. ;)

However, if you're running this stuff across a 100MB link you're probably not too overly concerned about performance anyway.

Dave
I work for HPE

[Any personal opinions expressed are mine, and not official statements on behalf of Hewlett Packard Enterprise]
Accept or Kudo
rick jones
Honored Contributor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

Tsk tsk tsk :)

Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.

Now, enabling security - especially encryption - will _affect_ :) service demand (quantity of CPU consumed per unit of work - something netperf will report for its tests if you ask it to), and a sufficiently large increase in service demand may _affect_ throughput.

How much is, of course, one of those (in)famous "it depends" sorts of questions.
there is no rest for the wicked yet the virtuous have no pillows
Gary L
Super Advisor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

Thanks Dave for your good explanations above.

Those two HP-UX servers are running 11i v1 (although we do have v2 and v3 OS installation CD/DVD for so many years, but so far my boss no upgrade plan), I haven't heard Secure NFS in v1, It look like it using SSH protocol.

In this case, I think transfer speed is more important than security.

-G
OldSchool
Honored Contributor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

Hmmm.. American Heritage sayeth thusly -

The effect or impression of one thing on another:
"..still gauging the impact of automation on the lives.."
Olivier Masse
Honored Contributor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

I'm assuming you're transferring rman files or exports. You might actually be able to save time with a compression-enabled SFTP if the data can achieve a good compression rate (especially if it's exports) but this will take considerable CPU time. Forget it if it's already compressed, as you'll need a too much CPU cycles to (re)compress and encrypt all that data.

Good luck
Bill Hassell
Honored Contributor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

Another alternative for maximum throughput is to use APA (called teaming on other platforms) where you use 4 LAN cables working together as a single IP address. Note that APA for throughput requires a minimum of 4 separate data streams (ie, 4 different copies of rsync, or sftp). Note that if you run 4ea Gbit links between two machines, you can easily push the limit on disk speeds (150-350 Mbytes/sec). That means that your 150 GB worth of files can be transferred in about 7 to 15 minutes, assuming that there are several files transferring at the same time. Now that speed is based on plain old FTP (no encryption, jumbo frames on simple crossover cables using Gbit cards on APA and fibre disks on both sides. The rate drops to less than half of that when using rsync, especially when there are lots of smaller files (a few MB each).


Bill Hassell, sysadmin
Steven Schweda
Honored Contributor

Re: NFS vs. SFTP which one faster?

> [...] which way (speed/rate)is faster?

If I _really_ wanted to know, rather than
asking people who know less than enough about
my whole environment, I'd run a test. (I
know that it's a radical concept, but I'm odd
that way.)

> tar cvf - filename | remsh hostname "cd /dir ; tar xvf -"

If your CPUs are faster than your network,
adding compression (gzip, bzip2, ...) to that
pipeline might help. Full command examples
abound in this forum.

>.Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are
> affected by the effects of events.

Hmmm. I'd say that people are affected by
events, not, generally, by the effects of
events. (There may be a limit to the amount
of wisdom which can be crammed into one pithy
remark.)

> American Heritage sayeth thusly -

Sadly, even good dictionaries tend to include
defective usage when it becomes sufficiently
common. Diluting "impact" to mean no more
than "affect" (or "effect") destroys much of
its value. (Dare I say, its _impact_?) One
(perhaps the only) benefit of using "impact"
everywhere is that semi-literates who haven't
mastered the difference between "affect" and
"effect" seem to be able to cope with
"impact" and "impact".