[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apt: http vs. ftp?



on Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:13:26PM -0500, David Teague (dbt@tinuviel.cs.wcu.edu) wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Ray Percival wrote:
> > 
> > > That would be backwards ftp is faster but sometimes it is easier to get
> > > http through a proxy and with some proxies it would be possible that
> > > http might be faster.
> > 
> > Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in all cases where there is not
> > a proxy involved. 
> > 
> > Jason
> 
> Hi Jason, Willy and Ray
> 
> I am not a networking authority, so I asked a colleague (Mark
> Holliday) who is.  He says http is optimized for relatively small
> files, mainly web pages, which are not terribly large, (what? 2 or 3
> K?)  whereas ftp was designed to be optimal files that may be very
> large.
> 
> I'd appreciate hearing more on this from others.

I've heard this though I cannot confirm it directly.  An applied
programming book on IP protocols would probably be useful here.

More to the point, however:  ftp is a bidirectional file transfer
protocol.  http is read-only.   With http, you request, and get, a
resource by URL.  ftp provides for transfer *to* the remote host, as
well as some command-level interactivity.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>     http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.                      http://www.zelerate.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/        http://www.kuro5hin.org

Attachment: pgpRFYajncgmB.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: