Date: 13 Jun 2001 21:05:26 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: "Crist Clark" <crist.clark@globalstar.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FW: FTP almost gone now? (was: Re: IPFW almost works now.) Message-ID: <xzpbsnsi4jt.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <200106131853.OAA03917@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <MFEFLELMIJGKDKPCJHAFEEGACDAA.pab@sysadmin-inc.com> <3B27A478.85A21D3F@globalstar.com> <200106131853.OAA03917@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> writes: > <<On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:35:52 -0700, "Crist Clark" <crist.clark@globalstar.com> said: > > HTTP is stateless. FTP has state. /All/ of the information required to > > do the transaction must go out with each individual HTTP request. > In the case we have been discussing, there is no state other than > authentication, and perhaps ``working directory''. As the author of the current incarnation of fetch(1), I'll back up Garrett here and confirm that HTTP is a much more network- and resource-friendly protocol than FTP. HTTP is perceived as heavier because HTTP servers are generally much more featureful (or bloated - it's all in the eye of the beholder) than FTP servers; they're also younger and more complex, and therefore more error-prone than most FTP servers; but none of that is to be blamed on the protocol itself. If you want to compare FTP and HTTP on an equal basis, send Apache packing and try thttpd instead (it's in the ports tree) - and even thttpd could easily be improved upon (amongst other issues, it doesn't use sendfile(2)). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpbsnsi4jt.fsf>