Comments on: Quick Follow Up on Mac FTP/SFTP Clients

By: slowe

slowe — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:14:38 +0000

Michael,

Try checking the box for using SCP; this really seems to improve performance for Cyberduck. I’m not sure in what version that was added; I know it’s there in version 2.8.4 (the latest version). With that box checked, performance was much more respectable.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:37:24 +0000

I have tried Cyberduck today for the first time because I am a Textmate user and need some ftp client that works with it.

It is so slow that I cannot use it, I did a search on cyberduck + speed and found this blog. So It looks like a well known issue.

I guess Transmit is my only option for Textmate. I have been an rBrowser user up to now and no complaints there – just need the Textmate support.

By: slowe

slowe — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:24:15 +0000

Mio,

Thanks for the recommendation; ForkLift looks nice, but I’m not a big fan of dual-paned arrangements. I’m pretty happy with Interarchy now.

By: Mio

Mio — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:38:36 +0000

Give ForkLift a try if you need speed: http://www.binarynights.com

By: slowe

slowe — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:04:06 +0000

Alec,

Have you spoken with Matthew Drayton about this? He has been extremely responsive in the instances in which I’ve communicated with him. I also tried to recreate this behavior myself, including listing a directory with more than 7500 entries via SFTP. I saw absolutely no strange CPU utilization–in fact, the CPU hardly even budged. I would really recommend you get in touch with Matthew and see if he can help you get this straightened out.

By: Alec

Alec — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:39:06 +0000

Along with Abhi, I will complain about Interarchy spiking CPU and freezing a DP 2.5 GHz machine while listing a new directory (10.4.8) – top shows Interarchy and core services sharing the CPU. Unacceptable behaviour. Transmit doesn’t seem to do that, although I hate the dual pane interface.

Not happy as I have 5 seat business licens for Interarchy and years invested in learning its quirks.

By: slowe

slowe — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 04:15:12 +0000

Abhi,

As I have stated several times already, my purpose here was to determine which client works best for me. I did do a real-world test. It’s not my fault that my real-world test, designed to help me pick the best client for my needs, is not a real-world test that works well for you. I would encourage you to do exactly what I did–test the clients and find out which client works best for you in your particular situation. What works best for me may not work best for you.

Scott

By: Abhi Beckert

Abhi Beckert — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:32:00 +0000

What about a more “real world” test? I just downloaded a 7MB website (327 files) with both interarchy and transmit from a remote server over an 8MB ADSL connection (server ping of 266ms, which is pretty slow).

The results? Transmit: 3 min, 33 sec, Interachy: 11 min, 9 sec.

Transmit downloads 4 files at once, which goes a long way towards eliminating ftp’s horrible overhead.

By: Jason Downing

Jason Downing — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:10:57 +0000

Thanks, Scott. I appreciate it! I do accept your point that the test was devised or your own particular needs – that’s fair enough, then

By: slowe

slowe — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:39:25 +0000

Jason,

The test may be unrealistic for many people–my point here was not to create a test that was realistic for everyone else but to create a test that allowed me to determine which product was right for my needs. If my findings prove useful to others, fine; if not, I encourage them to do the same thing themselves–use the products and determine which product is right for their needs.

Having said all that, I’ll try to run another set of tests that include Yummy FTP and see how it compares against the others.

(BTW, I’m glad to hear you ditched the metal look by default. Brushed metal…Ugh!)

Scott