As such, they are often preferred in scenarios where your user is a person as opposed to an automated process or account. For more information about Cerberus and to download a free day trial check out our website at www. Close Cart Shopping Cart.
While this does help with the evasion of an acient protocol, it forgets one of the poster's main goals. I don't believe there is anonymous sftp Score: 5 , Interesting. Support for a centralized authentication key repository a la Verisign , but support also for locally-defined, non-registered keys. Support for both encrypted and non-encrypted transfers.
Multiple client connections per server, possibly implemented with threads do not spawn one server process per client a la Samba, ftpd, httpd, etc. And, of course, we need to keep compression. Boy, I never thought that I could rant about file transfer software for so long!
Score: 4 , Informative. If the files you are serving are large then use ftp. If the files are smaller less than 10MB use http. Happened recently with a batch of photos from the car show Since I already have a web page it was easy to just throw the file in the http directory and provide the link in an e-mail.
I like http for the most part. I doubt anyone will call you lame for using it, unless the files are huge.
I got the idea from an OpenBSD list, though, so it should work most anywhere. To answer the original question, when given a choice, I always download by http. It usually takes less time to set up the connection, probably becasue of those ident lookups that most ftpd's still run by default.
I haven't really noticed any reliability issues with http anymore. If it starts loading it usually finishes, and I haven't run into any corruption problems. Maybe if you were serving huge files ftp would be a good idea, but for mb it's probably not worth it.
Re:hmm Score: 3 , Informative. Re:hmm Score: 4 , Interesting. Right, but for mb I'd rather just try my luck with http. Especially since http is faster to connect to than ftp.
Re:hmm Score: 4 , Informative. Re:hmm Score: 5 , Informative. Score: 4 , Funny. John Doe wants a clickety-click-drag-n-drop client,. You will not be forced to redo the entire download Score: 4 , Informative. HTTP is a much faster mechanism for serving small files of a few MB's as HTTP doesn't check the integrity of what you've just downloaded and relies purely on TCP's ability to check that all your packets arrived and were arranged correctly.
Not only is HTTP faster both in initiating a download and while the download is in progress, it typically has less overhead on your server than is caused by serving the same file using an FTP package. The speed of today's connections 56k, or DSL, or faster means that the FTP protocol is not redundant, but it's less of a requirement than it used to be - as the consensus of what we consider to be a large file size has changed greatly.
There was a time when anything over K was considered 'large' and the troublesome and unreliable nature of connections meant that software that was over that size would almost certainly need to be downloaded via FTP to ensure against corruption. Unless you are serving large files e. One last note: I'd also add that many users in corporate environments are not able to download via FTP due to poorly administered corporate firewalls.
Re:No, Score: 4 , Insightful. Connecting to multiple servers to download a file is great. Getting six connections from one client to one server is a royal pain, and is one of the reasons some admins have taken to blocking download managers. Getting multiple connections from one client can reduce the number of total users that can be served and is the biggest drawback to allowing download managers.
I'm not totally up on HTTP and such, but why is it a royal pain? It's still bandwidth being eaten. I guess it boils down to time versus users. Instead of banning download managers that can do segmented downloading, why not just limit the number of connexions from a given IP? That solves both the segmenting and the "tons of files at once" problems. I can make a dozen or more connexions to your FTP server with nothing more exotic than Netscape.
Why pick on download managers when they use the same number of connexions? BTW, Getright says right in its configuration that "some servers regard segmenting as rude" and recommends against it. Better to limit connexions to x-many per IP address, and let the user spend them any way they wish. BTW, if you do limit connexions, please remember that it usually takes one for browsing the site using Netscape or whatever PLUS one for the download manager to fetch the file.
Otherwise the user who was looking with a browser has to leave the server, then wait for the browser connexion to close which can take a while then finally paste the link into the DLManager.
So a limit of two connexions from a given IP is a nice practical minimum, and surely not a hard load for anything outside of home servers operating over dialup. I love FTP's convenience, and I always try to be extra-polite to small servers and not rude to big ones. I do use Getright, and have segmenting disabled which BTW is the default.
And I've never understood why they think that opening up 6 connections when downloading a file would be quicker than just one. Re:No, Score: 4 , Interesting. Because you get a larger share of the bandwidth pie. This applies both on the server end, and your ISP end.
If you have bandwidth to spare, you can get 6 or 8, or 10, depends on the client users worth of bandwidth because each connection is treated by the server as seperate. I have 3. The reason is simple: congestion! Starting multiple TCP connections for a single file download can be advantageous, because of congested network paths. Therefore, by opening multiple TCP connections, you will increase the amount of bandwidth for your transfer, at a cost to everyone else using the connection.
This is because you've effectively doubled the size of your receive window one for each connection , causing the host you are downloading from to stuff that many more packets down the pipe. The problem is, when everyone does it, it completely negates any advantage to using this method. It also leads to packet loss, since you have that many more TCP connections each with its own receive window fighting for pieces of the pie.
Here's how they work Score: 5 , Informative. I've worked pretty extensively with these two protocols, writing clients and servers for both. I've read all the relevant RFCs start-to-finish whole lotta boring and have a pretty good idea about what they both can do.
Now, there's a lot of talk about the two, but few people really understand how they work. The server accepts but does not send any data. The client sends his request string in the form [Method] [File Location]?
I honestly think FTP was a bad idea from the beginning. Both protocols depend on TCP to provide reliability. Reliability is NOT a distinguishing characteristic.
A wrench makes a bad hammer.. I havent had to worry about continuing a download since i stopped using my baud modem. The largest problem with downloaded are apps that autodownload updates and dont handle resuming. On broadband I havent concerned myself with an interrrupted DL in several years. To address security holes, if there have been anyproblems with the ftpd's lately they dont get a lot of press.
If you are referring to IIS, well Re:hmm Score: 5 , Insightful. I think the only reasonable way to do these things is to put up a gopher site. Re:gopher Score: 3 , Funny. Nah, use finger Re:gopher Score: 4 , Funny. Come on, CRC32 checksumming over a serial link was awesome. Saved "myfile. C'mon man! On a baud modem, I'd get an extra 12 cps with that baby. There are a few howto's out there. You can save directly into it from any application, as well as create folders and drag-and-drop copy from the Finder.
Very, very cool. Screw all of that! Use telnet and screen capture the VT Term buffer! Try both - see which gets used more. Re:do both Score: 5 , Funny. Then report back to us in the first ever Answer Slashdot. Re:how about rsync? I don't know, after Rsync's last album I've decided that they're probably too old for serious contending in the boy-band heavy marketplace. For robust downloading of large files rsync is the protocol to use. For those not familiar: rsync can copy or synchronize files or directories of files.
It's awesome for mirrored backups, among other things. No problem, I thought, I'll just use "wget -c" and it will continue fine. Well, it continued, but the archive was corrupt. I remembered that rsync can run over SSH and I rsync'd the file over the damaged one.
It took a few moments for it to find the blocks with the errors, and it downloaded just thost blocks. Rsync should be built into every program that downloads large files, including web browsers. Apple or someone should pick up this technology, give it some good marketing "auto-repair download" or something and life will be good.
Rsync also has a daemon mode that allows you to run a dedicated rsync server. This is good for public distribution of files. Rsync is the way to go! Caching MD5 sums for every block?
Well, this may ease the load on your processor but I hope you have plenty of RAM! Score: 3 , Informative. As far as the actual data being sent, I believe that the file is sent the same way with both protocols. I could be wrong though. This is not true.
It is a TCP connection just like the control connection. But yes, the latency required to initiate a transfer due to more handshakes generally makes FTP slower in general.
No, no, no. Everyone always gets this wrong. Passive or not, there is a channel for data and a separate channel for commands. The difference is that passive-mode means that the client initiates the data connection. The default FTP behavior is for the client to connect to port 21 on the server, and then the server initiates a data connection to the client.
Passive is a little better because both connections are outgoing. But at the same time, passive mode makes the server firewall's job tougher, because it requires an large range of incoming ports for the data connections. No matter what the mode, FTP is not very firewall-friendly.
FTPS encrypts both the control and data channel from beginning to end, ensuring the entire connection is secure. Second, SFTP encrypts all data before transmission, including user credentials. The additional encryption provides an extra layer of security for users, as well as some privacy, too. Most FTP clients provide a dual-screen window, displaying the files on your computer on one half, and the files on the remote computer or server in the other.
From here, you can copy and paste files from one computer to the other. Most FTP clients come with the same array of file management options as you find on your desktop, such as renaming, drag and drop, creating a new folder or file, and deletion.
Some FTP clients come with extra options, such as a command-line interface for advanced commands, built-in text editors for tweaking text-based files , and directory comparisons which allow you to compare the contents of two directories.
There are several good free FTP clients available for Windows. As mentioned above, you can use FTP from your browser. You need the address of the FTP server. The result will look something similar to this:. When you enter the URL to access the FTP server, you'll have to enter your login credentials, such as a username or email address, and the password.
In this instance, the URL will look similar to this:. However, browsers generally offer fewer security options, so you should consider the FTP servers you access and the content you download.
It is an interesting question. Collectives on Stack Overflow. Learn more. Ask Question. Asked 9 years, 8 months ago. Active 9 years, 8 months ago. Viewed 9k times. Swapnil Tailor Swapnil Tailor 1 1 silver badge 6 6 bronze badges. But my question is, technically which one is better? I mean is there any pros or one over the other? Add a comment.
0コメント