[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> >
> > Can anyone explain why it takes 1-5 minutes to get any FTP transfer to
> > start, while HTTP transfers are pretty quick?
>
> At a guess, some lack in DNS configuration. I don't get any noticeable
> delay with FTP from my junk-pentium to my mighty 386 laptop. Of course,
> that's only 3 feet.
> >
> > Is this due to slow connections and FTP wasn't designed for high
> > latency, and keep aborting and reconnecting the TCP over and over
> again,
> > or what ??
> >
> > And is FTP that more efficient on the server, or why does all
> > high-volume sites insist on using FTP instead of HTTP for download,
> such
> > as Apache and Linux sites?
>
> This is not entirely true. FTP to metalab.unc.edu and _read_ the
> greeting. It is also accessible by http, and has been for some time.
> At least that is what it tells me.
>
> FTP was useful before HTTP was even thought of, and I hope it'll outlive
> it.
>
The problem is not on the local net. Here the overhead is close to
neglectible.
And for metalab.unc.edu and its greeting.... Great, I only need to wait 45
seconds to find out there is a HTTP server available as well. A lot better
than most sites.
But it still doesn't answer why the 45 seconds!!
A PING of the same site shows me a latency of 340-500 ms, which means that
close to hundred packets could travel back and forth to establish the
connection. How about other sites, of well and beyond a couple of minutes
to connect.
Niclas
