Re: problem of `tramp-handle-file-local-copy' and inline transfer compressing

[Toru TSUNEYOSHI]

> For this case, there exists already the "pscp" method, which you could
> prefer over "plink".
> 
>> and
>>
>>   (setq tramp-copy-size-limit (* 1024 1024)) ; 1MB
>>
>> By the above setting, I use `plink' up to 1MB. If files size is larger
>> than 1MB, I use `pscp'.
> 
> And why have you increased `tramp-copy-size-limit'? Are there
> performance problems with the default value?

(In my former message)

  ;; with compress
  => "6.61 secs"
  => "4.516 secs"

  ;; with pscp instead of plink
  => "19.338 secs"
  => "13.209 secs"
  => "8.152 secs"
  => "8.422 secs"
  => "5.828 secs"

According to the above result of my test (file size is 613kB), `plink'
with compress is faster than `pscp'. And copy by `plink' don't need
`login'.
In the other hand, if we use `pscp', by default, we must input password
whenever `login' by the case. I don't know the way of automatic login
without password input well. Maybe I need to read `info' for Tramp
later, I think.
Those are the reasons why I increased `tramp-copy-size-limit'.

BTW, originally I have ever used `plink' as the method. And when I copy
remote file to local, I usually do it by `dired-do-copy' on `dired'.
(In this case, I do copy by `plink' automatically by default setting.
The speed of `plink' is very slow. So I made the patch.)

However, by your question, I notice that I misunderstood that `pscp' is
used only for file copy. Now I made sure that I can do `dired' by
`pscp'. For example, (dired "/pscp:remote-host:/").

Regrettably, if I know `dired' by `pscp' and automatic login without
password input, I don't have to make the patch.
But, if any part of the patch is effective, plese make use of it.

> 
>> I will do it some day. Sorry, I can't do it possibly for some
>> reason. Please don't expect.
>>

I don't have to do it, I think.

>> Thank you, Michael.
> 
> Best regards, Michael.
> 

Thanks, Michael san. (san: honorific title in Japanese)