I think compression is something that is really only quicker if the time to compress is compensated for by the time to transfer data. So compression on a slow connection is increasing speed up to maybe 6 times faster than without. Compression on a fast connection is not useful at all, as it drops speed due to compression delay on your or the host system. Some hosts don't accept compression at all, as they don't want to spend processor power on users.
I think this switch -o Ciphers=arcfour
will increase the speed of encryption to nearly no encryption, and -o cache=yes -o kernel_cache -o large_reads -o compression=no
may increase your speed a lot as it optimises sshfs a bit. Compression on low speed connections will speed up your transfer a lot if compression is possible; mostly it is. For example I do use it with a 2 Mbit/s down and 0,3 Mbit/s up connection, and it speeds up the transfer by about 3-5 minutes instead of 25-30 minutes for about 30 MByte.
@lajuette I want the same sort of thing and my reason is that I need something my quarantined Win98 and WinXP retro-gaming machines can use to pull files off my Linux desktop PC and, of the available options, SSH via WinSCP Just Works™ through my whitelist quarantine firewall while FTP and SMB won't work, no matter how hard I try to open the right ports. (And WebDAV can apparently only be served by Apache, which is too complicated to chroot.) – ssokolow – 2015-11-03T00:20:31.260
Oh, plus, AES gives me 27Mbit throughput on the Athlon64 3200+, maxing out the CPU, while RC4 doubles that, so no encryption should get even closer to maxing out the 100Mbit NIC on the WinXP side. (Given that the rotating rust drives currently installed on both ends of the copy operations in question max out at around 200Mbit when SMB is used with contiguous files to remove the need for seeking.) – ssokolow – 2015-11-03T01:28:28.440
1You are dropping encryption and compression... let me think. Why don't you use FTP or SMB? – lajuette – 2010-10-09T07:19:29.237
1No encryption sounds like no SSH really. Have you considered using another protocol altogether? – WhyNotHugo – 2013-07-07T21:18:06.510
2@lajuette: As Dan D. states below, ssh authentication will still be encrypted, so no passwords or keys in plaintext. Also, do you know any protocol that is as readily available as ssh where I can mount remote folders as easily as I can with sshfs? – Bjarke Freund-Hansen – 2014-03-24T07:48:26.700