Efficiency of emacs tramp

Question

Is there a way to improve emacs tramp performance? It’s faster for me to open an external ftp client (filezilla), transfer files to a local disk and open them in an external editor (notepad) than open them using emacs. I am using emacs23.1 under windows xp. I tried using a different method, the tramp-default method (telnet, pscp, ftp), they all have the same performance.

The profiling results using the elp-instrument package are as follows (I opened 3 deleted files of 1.5 MB each)

tramp-file-name-handler 1461 350.41599999 0.2398466803 tramp-sh-file-name-handler 1461 350.02699999 0.2395804243 tramp-send-command 227 179.63400000 0.7913392070 tramp-send-command-and-check 205 177.77600000 0.8672000000 tramp-wait-for-regexp 227 176.47800000 0.7774361233 tramp-wait-for-output 226 176.40000000 0.7805309734 tramp-barf-unless-okay 18 133.46699999 7.4148333333 tramp-handle-insert-file-contents 3 132.046 44.015333333 tramp-handle-file-local-copy 3 131.281 43.760333333 tramp-accept-process-output 2375 112.95100000 0.0475583157 

Thus, the actual file transfer takes 132 seconds, about 1/3 of the total time. Why does he spend so much time in tramp-sh-file-name-handler? I tried using the tramp-sh-file-name-handler function to store and return cache results, but this does not work, maybe this function has some side effects.

Any ideas on improving the performance of strollers? (I am using emacs 23.1 under WindowsXP)

Answer 1

I solved the problem with a few scripts that let me mget / put and mirror files or directories. These scripts use lftp (the version installed with cygwin) and have very good performance.

They demanded to publish my decision. Unfortunately, I only have a prototype of this. I don’t have time to finish this. He helps me, but he is not able to publish.

Answer 2

I found that fuse-ssh is much better than tramp mode if you can configure it that way.

Answer 3

if your use case improves, use the remote client! I resorted to editing remotely using emacs, this reminds me.

my experience has made me believe that emacs machine hosting will become a bottleneck

however, the best SSH client can help ... try the list on OpenSSH.org (low in the left navigator) I like PuTTY on Windows, where selection = copy and right-click = paste.

not sure how to improve remote performance. The default build of emacs has a lot of lisp by default, but it requires more disk space than RAM space, and has always been effective for me, except for large files and net / sys lag.

If your case has backlighting and auto-updates that you do not need, then a minimal setup can help - it should be able to do this without recovery.

emacs is so extensive that I noticed the most when I found out that it can send / receive email. I barely examined the tip of the iceberg.

in this case, although “vi” might be better ... even with more emacs experience, I used small portions in each camp. I’m rarely a script or looking for a new function, digging is tough, but there are convenient guides for both.