Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .