What's this?

commandlinefu.com is the place to record those command-line gems that you return to again and again.

Delete that bloated snippets file you've been using and share your personal repository with the world. That way others can gain from your CLI wisdom and you from theirs too. All commands can be commented on, discussed and voted up or down.

Get involved!

You can sign-in using OpenID credentials, or register a traditional username and password.

First-time OpenID users will be automatically assigned a username which can be changed after signing in.

Universal configuration monitoring and system of record for IT.

Stay in the loop…

Follow the Tweets.

Every new command is wrapped in a tweet and posted to Twitter. Following the stream is a great way of staying abreast of the latest commands. For the more discerning, there are Twitter accounts for commands that get a minimum of 3 and 10 votes - that way only the great commands get tweeted.

» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu3
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu10

Subscribe to the feeds.

Use your favourite RSS aggregator to stay in touch with the latest commands. There are feeds mirroring the 3 Twitter streams as well as for virtually every other subset (users, tags, functions,…):

Subscribe to the feed for:



May 19, 2015 - A Look At The New Commandlinefu
I've put together a short writeup on what kind of newness you can expect from the next iteration of clfu. Check it out here.
March 2, 2015 - New Management
I'm Jon, I'll be maintaining and improving clfu. Thanks to David for building such a great resource!

Top Tags



Psst. Open beta.

Wow, didn't really expect you to read this far down. The latest iteration of the site is in open beta. It's a gentle open beta-- not in prime-time just yet. It's being hosted over at UpGuard (link) and you are more than welcome to give it a shot. Couple things:

  • » The open beta is running a copy of the database that will not carry over to the final version. Don't post anything you don't mind losing.
  • » If you wish to use your user account, you will probably need to reset your password.
Your feedback is appreciated via the form on the beta page. Thanks! -Jon & CLFU Team

live ssh network throughput test

Terminal - live ssh network throughput test
yes | pv | ssh $host "cat > /dev/null"
2009-12-27 21:34:23
User: opertinicy
Functions: ssh yes
live ssh network throughput test

connects to host via ssh and displays the live transfer speed, directing all transferred data to /dev/null

needs pv installed

Debian: 'apt-get install pv'

Fedora: 'yum install pv' (may need the 'extras' repository enabled)


There is 1 alternative - vote for the best!

Terminal - Alternatives
pv /dev/zero|ssh $host 'cat > /dev/null'
2010-01-06 20:40:51
User: opertinicy
Functions: ssh
Tags: ssh pv /dev/null

connects to host via ssh and displays the live transfer speed, directing all transferred data to /dev/null

needs pv installed

Debian: 'apt-get install pv'

Fedora: 'yum install pv' (may need the 'extras' repository enabled)

Know a better way?

If you can do better, submit your command here.

What others think

NO! Sorry but this will not give you the true network speed of your network or any network. Using SSH adds a lot of extra data on the network in addition to what you are transfering (about 200-300% more) that would of course not be seen by pv. Probably a better way to do this is using nc or something.

Try running this on the server side:

nc -l -p 44444 > /dev/null

And then this on the client side:

yes | pv | nc serverhostname.example.com 44444

Nice try though.

Comment by deltaray 347 weeks and 4 days ago

of course it's going to have the overhead added by ssh, that is implied by the fact it is going over ssh (and as indicated by the summary).

Comment by opertinicy 347 weeks and 4 days ago

also, 200-300% is a gross overestimation and is highly dependant on the cpu's doing the encryption/decryption. the actual data being transferred on the network is not increased by much. as i never transfer files between hosts unencrypted, this command is highly useful in tweaking/measuring my ssl/ssh settings for use when using ssh tunneling/scp

Comment by opertinicy 347 weeks and 4 days ago

Nice, I hadn't known about the 'pv' command. Just out of curiousity, why did you use 'yes' instead of /dev/zero?

(BTW, I agree that it's actually more useful to know the bandwidth including encryption overhead than the raw network bandwidth.)

Comment by hackerb9 346 weeks and 6 days ago

Sure, but I just want to make sure people realize when they read this is that all your example measures is what the bandwidth would be for SSH between the two machines it was tested on, not for other protocols on the network in general. You started to get at that in your comments, but you didn't put that in your initial description.

Comment by deltaray 346 weeks and 6 days ago

no specific reason for using yes [other than it's shorter/quicker to type :) ]

you could use /dev/zero as well:

cat /dev/zero | pv | ssh $host 'cat > /dev/null'

or even better:

pv /dev/zero -W | ssh $host 'cat > /dev/null'

Comment by opertinicy 346 weeks and 4 days ago

I noticed using the -C option for ssh makes a huge difference... probably mostly due to using /dev/zero being easy to compress :)

dd bs=1024 count=1M if=/dev/zero of=s1

1048576+0 records in

1048576+0 records out

1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 8.26632 seconds, 130 MB/s

Comment by AskApache 333 weeks ago

Calling /dev/zero as the stdout in this example provides for a pretty good demonstration on how compression works, (specifically zlib compression, in this instance). However, it is relatively useless for any kind of bandwidth benchmark =p

Comment by opertinicy 332 weeks and 6 days ago

How about /dev/random ?

Comment by jrdld 53 weeks and 1 day ago

using /dev/random (combined with compression) would give a good indication of the throughput.

Comment by opertinicy 53 weeks ago

Your point of view

You must be signed in to comment.