Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:At 21:04 6/17/2004, Ed K. wrote:FTP sucks for transferring many files. HTTP has something chunked transfers or something (?) and persistent connections and you don't need to worry about passive or active or firewalls, binary or text or anything. P2P technology is even better because everyone is the server. FTP is still OK, I guess, for large file transfer.I can't wait for ftp to retire for organized archives. http and bittorrent
should be all that is needed. no http header equivalent for ftp.
Just curious... I thought FTP was significantly more efficient for transferring files...? Yes/no/why?
let me just add a little, FTP uses UDP with its own traffic shaper algorithm that is better at taking 100% of the bandwidth. But who really wants to use 100% anyway? Your network connection will become useless for anything else.
when transferring many small files, http with persistent connections will blow away an ftp mirror, any day any night.
What is why the days are numbered. for small files, use http. for large files (iso), use bittorrent. Plus the bonus of http headers are very
important for caching hierarchies.
{corrections from anyone......?}ed
Security on the internet is impossible without strong, open, and unhindered encryption.
