on Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:13:26PM -0500, David Teague ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Ray Percival wrote:
> >
> > > That would be backwards ftp is faster but sometimes it is easier to get
> > > http through a proxy and with some
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, David Teague wrote:
> I never pretended to know anything, but I find your response
> amusing, and your discussion and that of others enlightening. I
> suspected that ftp might not be faster, but did not know why.
The true answer is that there is no way one is faster than the
Hi Jason
I never pretended to know anything, but I find your response
amusing, and your discussion and that of others enlightening. I
suspected that ftp might not be faster, but did not know why.
Nathan Norman suggests that HTTP 1.1 has enhancements that make it
faster than ftp, hence apt uses it
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, David Teague wrote:
> I am not a networking authority, so I asked a colleague (Mark
> Holliday) who is. He says http is optimized for relatively small
> files, mainly web pages, which are not terribly large, (what? 2 or 3
> K?) whereas ftp was designed to be optimal files th
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:13:26PM -0500, David Teague wrote:
> I am not a networking authority, so I asked a colleague (Mark
> Holliday) who is. He says http is optimized for relatively small
> files, mainly web pages, which are not terribly large, (what? 2 or 3
> K?) whereas ftp was designed to
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Ray Percival wrote:
>
> > That would be backwards ftp is faster but sometimes it is easier to get
> > http through a proxy and with some proxies it would be possible that
> > http might be faster.
>
> Er, no it isn't. http is faste
On Wednesday 06 December 2000 07:05, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > > Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in all cases where there is
> > > not a proxy involved.
> >
> > why would http be faster? how much faster you mean? and what makes it
> > better? A
Harry Henry Gebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All this capability (which is great in those situations where you need
>it) is overkill for many applications. An HTTP connection on the other
>hand is very simple, the client makes a request and the server makes a
>reply (well, it's a little more compl
Kenrick wrote:
> > Re: apt: http vs. ftp?
> > > Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in all cases where there is not
> > > a proxy involved.
> > >> why would http be faster? how much faster you mean? and what makes it
> > >>better?
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:53:57AM +1100, Chris Kenrick wrote:
> Re: apt: http vs. ftp?
> > Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in all cases where there is not
> > a proxy involved.
> >> why would http be faster? how much faster you mean? and what makes it
>
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Chris Kenrick wrote:
> itself is less for http. This makes me curious .. why would a hypertext
> transfer protocol have less overhead on file transfers for one designed
> for transferring files?
Because the design goals of FTP were never to have a low cost file
connection?
Re: apt: http vs. ftp?
> Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in all cases where there is not
> a proxy involved.
>> why would http be faster? how much faster you mean? and what makes it
>>better? AFAIK they are about equally good/fast for purpose of file
>>tran
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 04:24:33PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> HTTP has less overhead, IIRC. For example, resumable FTP transfers
> require passing additional data. No such thing for HTTP. By
> stripping out all the overhead, HTTP has fewer features, but is
> faster.
HTTP definitely has less over
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in all cases where there is not
> > a proxy involved.
>
> why would http be faster? how much faster you mean? and what makes it
> better? AFAIK they are about equally good/fast for purpose of file
> transfer.
Where things differ in my experience is where the mirrors get busy. If
there are too many ftp connections you cannot connect. This is either
good or bad, it is good if you are one of the connected it means you get
a faster transfer. Obviously it is bad if you aren't, you get nuffin.
Generally I hav
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 01:59:41PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Ray Percival wrote:
> >
> > > That would be backwards ftp is faster but sometimes it is easier to get
> > > http through a proxy and with some proxies it would be possible that
> > >
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Ray Percival wrote:
>
> > That would be backwards ftp is faster but sometimes it is easier to get
> > http through a proxy and with some proxies it would be possible that
> > http might be faster.
>
> Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in al
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Ray Percival wrote:
> That would be backwards ftp is faster but sometimes it is easier to get
> http through a proxy and with some proxies it would be possible that
> http might be faster.
Er, no it isn't. http is faster and better in all cases where there is not
a proxy invo
On 4 Dec 2000, Willy Lee wrote:
> Just curious, is there any particular reason to favor http vs. ftp, or
http is faster if you are not proxied.
Jason
Dear debian-users,
Just curious, is there any particular reason to favor http vs. ftp, or
vice versa, in one's sources.list?
tia,
=wl
--
Albert ``Willy'' Lee, Emacs user, game programmer
"They call me CRAZY - just because I DARE to DREAM of a RACE of
SUPERHUMAN MONSTERS!"
20 matches
Mail list logo
