Are we talking about FTP or sFTP here? Have you tried changing the FTP buffer size or any other analysis? Is it consistent across all sites or just one?
Haven't tried simple FTP in ages, so not sure about it. sFTP suffers for sure.
No amount of tweaking has fixed it, and it's consistent among sites, even with servers on my LAN. And keep in mind that it's not only transfers that are ridiculously slow, but all operations - like listing a directory etc.
FTP is obviously faster than SFTP, but it's still not the fastest. As gryzor says, even across my gigabit LAN, it's considerable slower than all other clients I've tried.
I did make a few buffer changes as reported / requested in other threads on the forum, but nothing worked, for remote or local servers.
I'm happy to run any tests you wish if I can help diagnose anything as I really would love to go back to using DOpus for all of my file operations.
[quote="robertcollier4"]Helpful links on how to improve SFTP transfer speed from this same problem occuring in WinSCP: winscp.net/tracker/show_bug.cgi?id=164[/quote]
But as far as I can see, DO does not give any options for sFTP transfers...?
I have just moved server hosts and was setting up a new ftp account via Opus.. went to setup sFTP and realised i did not have the addon license.. unfortunately i won't be paying extra until i hear the situation has been improved.
Normal ftp is horribly slow and clearly so is sFTP, as soon as i hear the situation has been improved i'll purchase the additional license. Just my feedback via my wallet.
Sorry this is just not the case. Both standard FTP and SSL are very fast in Opus and can achieve high transfer rates. There are known issues with SFTP over SSH because it is based on an older version of Putty. These issues are currently being investigated.
For information, Opus already uses these buffer techniques similar to those discussed in these articles. The issues are not directly related to windows socket buffer sizes, which Opus optimises automatically to use the maximum or most suitable available dynamically.
[quote="greg"]Sorry this is just not the case. Both standard FTP and SSL are very fast in Opus and can achieve high transfer rates. There are known issues with SFTP over SSH because it is based on an older version of Putty. These issues are currently being investigated.
[ snip ]
[/quote]
This is good news Greg! Looking forward to the results in a future build
[quote="greg"]Sorry this is just not the case. Both standard FTP and SSL are very fast in Opus and can achieve high transfer rates. There are known issues with SFTP over SSH because it is based on an older version of Putty. These issues are currently being investigated.
For information, Opus already uses these buffer techniques similar to those discussed in these articles. The issues are not directly related to windows socket buffer sizes, which Opus optimises automatically to use the maximum or most suitable available dynamically.[/quote]
I'm sorry, what is not the case? That Opus ftp transfer speeds are considerably slower than other options that are freely available?
greg your attitude to observations from your customer over many many months and in fact years is stinks of off handish arrogant denial. It is clear from threads covering slow ftp transfer rates that loyal customers have stopped using Opus ftp due to its poor performance.. maybe you could address these concerns rather than just ignoring them / discounting them as you have.
[quote="Watoh"][quote="greg"]Sorry this is just not the case. Both standard FTP and SSL are very fast in Opus and can achieve high transfer rates. There are known issues with SFTP over SSH because it is based on an older version of Putty. These issues are currently being investigated.
For information, Opus already uses these buffer techniques similar to those discussed in these articles. The issues are not directly related to windows socket buffer sizes, which Opus optimises automatically to use the maximum or most suitable available dynamically.[/quote]
I'm sorry, what is not the case? That Opus ftp transfer speeds are considerably slower than other options that are freely available?
greg your attitude to observations from your customer over many many months and in fact years is stinks of off handish arrogant denial. It is clear from threads covering slow ftp transfer rates that loyal customers have stopped using Opus ftp due to its poor performance.. maybe you could address these concerns rather than just ignoring them / discounting them as you have.
[/quote]
Let's calm down I think Greg means that the points mentioned in the links above are not the case with the issue, not that there's no issue!
"There are known issues with SFTP over SSH because it is based on an older version of Putty. These issues are currently being investigated."
and,
"The issues are not directly related to windows socket buffer sizes, which Opus optimises automatically to use the maximum or most suitable available dynamically."
I'm locking this thread as I don't think anything useful will come from continuing it.
As Greg said, we're weighing up what to do with the old Putty code at the moment. Whatever we decide to do will be a long-term plan, not something that changes overnight. Depending on what we choose to do, it may also bring improvements to FTP speeds for some people. (FTP is fast for us, but yes, we are aware that it's not always as fast for some computers/networks/servers compared to dedicated FTP clients.)
