Take the 2-minute tour ×

I've noticed that cloning repo via ssh is much slower than through http regardless if it is from my own servers or BitBucket. Much in my case equals to 10 seconds from http vs. more than 2 minutes with ssh on the same BitBucket repository.

I'm using Mercurial on Windows (TortoiseHg 1.5, Mercurial 1.7). Both tests were done from GUI as well as from CLI.

Is it a common "issue" or I'm doing something wrong?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Have you turned on ssh compression in your ssh client?? It's on by default in HTTP, but it's off by default in ssh it's a setting that ssh and not mercurial controls.


Usually Mercurial ssh access is faster than http -- it is for me anyway.

I find that on a LAN things are faster without compression (compression takes more time than xfer) and on a WAN it's the reverse.

share|improve this answer
Yes, I've added -C flag long ago and when I do "clone" I see it in the complete command line –  zerkms Nov 10 '10 at 22:58
well, I suppose no more answers will be given. so I check this one. –  zerkms Nov 15 '10 at 23:56

I have seen the same.

At first, I had a RHEL4/RHEL5 ssh issue, that prohibited compression to be negotiated - but that's fixed now (configuration tweaks). Unfortunately, I still see a factor of ~3 in cloning a repo (http vs. ssh).

I used "ssh = ssh -C -v" to see the compression ratio.

I'm using Linux, and I see this when cloning a large repo (180M+) - over a WAN (Europe <-> India/Asia).

share|improve this answer
Thanks for the answer. At least I'm not alone with such issue ;-) –  zerkms Nov 18 '10 at 0:27

Your Answer


