Adam Tkac writes: > Tomas Mraz pí¡e v St 08. 11. 2006 v 12:07 +0100: > > On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:55 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > Adam Tkac writes: > > > > I think, It's no argument to include rsh in next versions of fc/rhel. > > > > OpenSSH could successfully substitute this component. SSH is more secure > > > > than rsh and has all features of rsh. Do you think anything else?? > > > > > > High performance environments are one obvious example. I've used rsh > > > for high-load testing of systems, where you don't want encryption > > > overhead to get in the way. > > > > Yes, definitely. There are also other problems with scp/sftp protocols > > which lower their performance on fast networks. These are being remedied > > with the HPN patch (http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/) but > > upstream still refuses to accept the patch and we don't want to diverge > > from it so much. There is also a question if this patch couldn't cause > > incompatibility with unpatched OpenSSH clients/servers in some > > circumstances. > > > > So I'd say, keep the rsh for now. Or even better possibility would be to > > move it to Extras as Extras are NOT a second class citizen and RHEL can > > still include it. > > > > -- > > Tomas Mraz > > No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. > > Turkish proverb > > > > You're truly right. This idea about high-performance systems doesn't > strike me. I'm going to look forward to this idea when upstream of > OpenSSH accepts HPN patch (or other improvement for this problem). The acid test is this, run over a fast network: $ tar cf - foo | rsh bar tar xfBp - This should hit the bandwidth of the connection. Andrew. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
