Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have 2 machines running Windows Xp SP3. I have cygwin installed on both, version 1.7. I have rsync and ssh installed on both, and configured using default settings as per ssh-host-config and ssh-user-config programs provided.

I moved the public keys into their respective locations, and basically ssh is working fine. i began an rsync operation, using:

rsync -av --delete --hard-links local_dir username@other_machine:/some_dir

well... on both machines, the processor is running near idle, no heavy usage. I checked IO using process explorer on both machines, and that too is at normal levels (1~2 MB/s), so I can't see where the bottlenecks are, because network performance is aweful. I'm not going over 1MB/s... when a normal file copy using windows sharing achieves some ~10 MB/s..

What could be wrong?


As suggested, i ran an iperf test, with not-so-good results at all...

$ iperf -c -t 10
Client connecting to, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
[  3] local port 1220 connected with port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-17.0 sec  72.0 KBytes  34.7 Kbits/sec
share|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I'd first try to find out if your networking (inside cygwin) is slow. You could try to use iperf to run some basic benchmarks.

On the server:

iperf -s

On the client:

iperf -c <host of server>

This should give output showing close to 100 MBit/sec. If not, the problem is unrelated to rsync (and the encryption you use because of the SSH access).

share|improve this answer
edited post.. iperf was dead slow :S – Waleed Hamra Nov 30 '12 at 11:19
Could you run iperf between cygwin+windows (in both variants)? Maybe only one of the cygwin installations has a problem. – C-Otto Nov 30 '12 at 12:03
same results. so i decided to do another test. this time in UDP. it's not perfect, but much better, around 1 MB/s in contrast to the 35KB/s i'm getting using TCP.. – Waleed Hamra Nov 30 '12 at 12:10
Also very slow. I found out that VirtualBox NAT is the culprit, solve the problem with this command: VBoxManage modifyvm "VM Name" --natsettings1 1500,1024,1024,1024,1024 (more information:…) – cmc Mar 15 '14 at 20:35

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.