> General note: scp is great for real-life use over unprotected networks. > But because there is the overhead of encryption and decryption, scp can > be limited by processor power at one end or the other of a link, rather > than raw throughput (especially if the network card itself requires a > lot of processor time to do its stuff). This means it's not the best > choice for measuring anything other than scp throughput. Good point. I did not take into consideration the wireless encryption being done. Using ttcp I got these results: 11M = 4.48 Mbit/sec +++ 54M = 8.68 Mbit/sec +++ On a regular 10/100 NIC I get 87.03 Mbit/sec +++ With or with encryption overhead that is significantly faster than the wireless connection. Any ideas? Thanks, James -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
