Well if your copying the file on the same local disk this isnt' a problem. I have copied files larger than that across the network and had no problems. Not to mention this is a process that was said to be run on a monthly basis.
-----Original Message----- From: Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:34 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FTP vs HTTP did you read the size...file (35M) On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Justin Waldrip wrote: > Why not write a routine that will copy the file into the anonymous area > of the ftp server when a user initiates a download? That way you don't > always have the files available for anonymous access. I have a routine > that once a user initiates the download of a file, it copies the file > from our database server up the one of the load balanced web servers for > download. Then once the user is done downloading the file it is deleted > from the web server. Just a suggestion not sure if it fits your > application. > > Justin Waldrip > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:58 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FTP vs HTTP > > Good Suggestions, I agree that FTP is a better way to push large files. > Problem is, I need to justify opening an anonymous access. The idea > that it > might boost performance would be a plus, but I'm having trouble finding > comparisons. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:39 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FTP vs HTTP > > Ditto to howie - http servers and processes are also usually configured > to > "timeout" long running request in order to enhance server performance > and > overall user experience. FTP is a better choice. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:55 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FTP vs HTTP > > > For a file like that I would definitely use FTP - that is what FTP is > for. > Most modern ftp servers and clients support resume for > one thing (only http/1.1 supports resume and I'm not sure how many web > clients support it). And, although there may or may not be a > risk using anonymous access to the ftp server it is no more or less of > a > security risk when providing anonymous http access IMHO. > > Regards, > > Howie > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:37 PM > Subject: FTP vs HTTP > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > I'm searching for opinions and perhaps metrics that might suggest > when it > is > > better to channel downloads using FTP vs HTTP from a single web > server > > environment. Essentially, we have a large file (35M) that a > significant > > number of people must download monthly. The question is: "What > advantage > > could we gain by using an FTP link vs a HTTP link?" Opening an > anonymous > > FTP channel is potentially more risky from a security standpoint. > But, we > > are wondering if channeling this traffic on another port would > possibly > free > > up port 40 and result in a performance gain for the steady flow of > *.cfm > > requests. > > > > Anyone out there with an opinion please chime in. Or, if you know > where I > > could find more information on this topic, send me a note. Thanks. > > > > Good Fortune, > > Rick Walters > > Webmaster, Davita Laboratory Services > > Office: (800) 604-5227 > > Cell: (407) 491-9848 > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Why Share? Dedicated Win 2000 Server · PIII 800 / 256 MB RAM / 40 GB HD / 20 GB MO/XFER Instant Activation · $99/Month · Free Setup http://www.pennyhost.com/redirect.cfm?adcode=coldfusionc FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
