does anybody know why FreeBSD scp ignores -l limit ?

C

cwf-ml

Subject says it all. scp has a nifty bandwidth limiting feature.

I needed to copy a bunch of really big files via a 10Mbit link, without impacting that one for others. So.... I tried scp -l 2000 source-files me@targethost:

I first tried on my windows box with cygwin. worked like a charm.

But the files are on the bsd box. BSD scp also supports the -l option - but it keeps using up the full 10Mbit, showing 1.1MByte/sec transfer. I waited for ~10 minutes for this to adapt, but no change (cygwin scp needed about a minute to scale down to the 2 Mbit/s = 250 kbyte/s), but the error is stable.

Yes - I could use rsync as workaround - rsync --bwlimit actually works. But still - is this a known limitation or a bug or what?
 
Yes I tried lower values (no use either).
And 2 Mbit/s is exactly what I wanted the limit to be.
 
cwf-ml said:
And 2 Mbit/s is exactly what I wanted the limit to be.
Click to expand...
This I don't understand, because earlier you said that 1.1Mbit/s was gobbling up the full bandwith.

I can't help think that you might be confusing the speed indications and therefor need to use lower values. Because I can assure you (from personal experience) that -l definitely works.
 
ShelLuser said:
This I don't understand, because earlier you said that 1.1Mbit/s was gobbling up the full bandwith.

I can't help think that you might be confusing the speed indications and therefor need to use lower values. Because I can assure you (from personal experience) that -l definitely works.
Click to expand...

See the first post: it says " but it keeps using up the full 10Mbit, showing 1.1MByte/sec transfer"
Which is, give or take some overhead, the equiavlent of 10Mbit. Bit != Byte.

The question is still open.
 
Code: 
# scp -l 1000 Db1 matt@192.168.100.10:~/
Password for matt@192.168.100.10:
Db1           27%   11MB 122.5KB/s   04:02 ETA

Hmm, just tried it on a 10.3-RELEASE machine and it definitely seems to be restricting bandwidth for me...
 
Chris236 said:
See the first post: it says " but it keeps using up the full 10Mbit, showing 1.1MByte/sec transfer"
Which is, give or take some overhead, the equiavlent of 10Mbit. Bit != Byte.
Click to expand...
I know. That's why I don't understand the OPs problem.

Re-read the first post and you'll notice that the OP used 2000 as value, and as you mentioned that accounts for around 20Mbit. Twice the bandwith the OP has, yet they concluded that -l doesn't work. That's what I don't understand.
 
2000 kbits/s is approx 2 Mbits/s which is approx 0.2 Mbytes/s.

If the limit was specified in kbytes/s, then you'd be correct, as 2000 kbytes/s is approx 2 Mbytes/s which is approx 20 Mbits/s.

However, the man page lists it as kbits/s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top