On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 07:15:53PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > For performance, the '"cipher none" alternatives' thread in the list
> > archives is one of a couple threads that discuss this.  Several people
> > actually did some testing, and typically they found there was no
> > significant performance difference between using arcfour or blowfish
> > and no cipher.  If you really want to speed things up, it looked like
> it's a joke. maybe on athlon 6000 Mhz overclocked to 10000 and 10Mbps
> ethernet there is no difference.
> 
> with 486/33 ssh uses 100% CPU and is able to deliver about 100kB/s

Do you *ever* actually do any research before spewing onto the NetBSD
lists?  I suspect you have the mistaken impression that everyone else
on these lists is here just to provide the service of detecting your
*particularly* idiotic notions.  Cut it out already, would you?

The fact of the matter is that SSH with cipher 'none' is, though faster
than with cipher blowfish depending on your host CPU, at least five times
slower than rsh.  This difference appears to be due to cache effects of
the CRC performed on every packet, as well as extra copies required to
assemble the relatively complex SSH packet format.

If you want to not enter your password, and you don't give a damn about
security (because with SSH and cipher none, you aren't getting any!) just
use rsh and .rhosts.

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	                                      tls@rek.tjls.com
    And now he couldn't remember when this passion had flown, leaving him so
  foolish and bewildered and astray: can any man?
						   William Styron