Re: apt: http vs. ftp?
On Wednesday 06 December 2000 07:05, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > > Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in all cases where there is
> > > not a proxy involved.
> >
> > why would http be faster? how much faster you mean? and what makes it
> > better? AFAIK they are about equally good/fast for purpose of file
> > transfer...
>
> http almost no per file overhead, ftp has a substantial amount. You only
> need to compare apt-get update using both to realize why http is better
> overall.
>
> Jason
Okay, http is faster. But is it just as reliable as ftp?
Sometimes I suspect that my ISP is just deliberately throttling my ftp
connections to prevent any activity besides lazy web browsing. But with
Debian you get as many http download opportunities as ftp. That's perhaps the
main difference between Debian and the other distros: ample http access.
I could count on the figures of my hand the number of listed http sites for
Redhat or Mandrake.
The big question is the integrity of the downloaded file. I have had no
problems with a pure ftp download. I can't say the same thing for http.
Speaking from experience
Reply to: