<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">So you’re saying the repo index has to be pushed back to the client, over SMB, while with the SSH server it is just kept in the server. that’s no problem and a reason to use SSH, but I am curious for this discussion more about the network traffic in the other direction…from client to server. Does anything end up getting sent twice (or more) over SMB that wouldn’t otherwise get sent in that direction over SSH?<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Again, I’m just trying to determine which method is more efficient here. I see 30% more network bandwidth in the client->server direction during create over SMB…and sustained that way for hours… Which means I can either deduce that SMB is transferring the data more efficiently……30% faster….or… if its doing duplicated transfers in that direction…then that could show the increased bandwidth but would not mean 30% faster end result.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">From: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">Thomas Waldmann <<a href="mailto:tw@waldmann-edv.de" class="">tw@waldmann-edv.de</a>><br class=""></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class=""><b class="">Re: [Borgbackup] remove ssh or via SMB?</b><br class=""></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">Date: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">September 28, 2017 at 2:09:05 PM MDT<br class=""></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">To: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">Steve Schow <<a href="mailto:steve@bstage.com" class="">steve@bstage.com</a>><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">ssh of course needs some more cpu for the transport encryption.<br class=""><br class="">if you just did a quick little test, you didn't have a big repo index,<br class="">so starting a transaction was cheap in both cases.<br class=""><br class="">that will look different if you have a repo index of e.g. 1GB, then it<br class="">will have to copy that at the beginning of each transaction (at the<br class="">start of the backup and at every checkpoint it is doing).<br class=""><br class="">copying 1GB locally is no big issue, but pumping it back and forth over<br class="">the network usually takes a bit longer.<br class=""><br class="">-- <br class=""><br class="">GPG ID: 9F88FB52FAF7B393<br class="">GPG FP: 6D5B EF9A DD20 7580 5747 B70F 9F88 FB52 FAF7 B393<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>