I'm currently using COPSSH to tunnel various connections to a remote Windows box and connecting using plink.exe from the PUTTY suite. After connecting directly, I've come to realise that the quality of connection using this setup is appalling. Tunnelled connections appear to get slower and slower. Can anyone recommend secure tunnel software that is more performant than my current setup?
-
1Maybe low performance is due to network link speed/bandwidth.– lg.Jul 1, 2010 at 14:05
-
That sentiment is why I've put up with this for over a year, however in an experiment, I opened up the ports directly and connected without tunneling. The speed difference is astonishing.– spenderJul 1, 2010 at 14:30
-
performant is not a word– JamesRyanJul 1, 2010 at 15:22
-
2@EK: "I don’t know why; it’s a perfectly cromulent word." en.wiktionary.org/wiki/performant– jscottJul 1, 2010 at 15:26
-
Also see serverfault.com/questions/57626/… and sites.inka.de/~W1011/devel/tcp-tcp.html. Basically any tunneling of TCP via TCP is going to result in worse performance.– ZoredacheJul 1, 2010 at 16:47
5 Answers
I've used both stunnel, and the putty family of tools (plink, putty), and I've only rarely found performance issues. I would imagine your slowness comes from poor network connection, or performance issues on either end of the pipe.
A UDP-based protocol will be more asynchronous than serializing over a tcp stream.
This should give OpenVPN better performance than OpenSSH on a lossy or high-latency network.
I find that plink.exe has much higher latency than Cygwin's ssh on windows. The difference is quite noticeable when using Synergy to share a keyboard and mouse.
-
1I switched from plink to openSSH because of latency issues. It dropped from 1 second to 100ms!– hplbshNov 20, 2011 at 20:57