W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

RE: indefinite server-push (was 'Last-Modified in chunked footer')

From: <touch@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:10:39 -0700
Message-Id: <199709151810.LAA25545@rum.isi.edu>
To: masinter@parc.xerox.com, ben@algroup.co.uk, hallam@ai.mit.edu
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4409
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:08:02 -0400
> Servers already commonly deliver far more content than is practical
> to store to disk. I regularly use HTTP to transfer files of several hundred
> Mb. It is far faster using HTTP than NFS on our LAN and I suspect on
> many others. TCP/IPs stream connection has great performance
> advantages over UDP. If you don't believe me set up to Alphas running
> Digital UNIX on an entirely separate LAN and benchmark them.
> Incidentally HTTP also outperforms FTP if the server providing the 
> data is a MAC and in any case vastly reduces the probability of
> the data being corrupted by braindamaged character conversion.

Binary mode FTP is the solution here - esp. if you're backing things
up and restoring them to the same system. Neither system should
outperform the other for large files, given proper implementations.
(i.e., the performance difference is due to poor implementations,
not the protocols, for large files).

Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu		    http://www.isi.edu/~touch/
ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM       http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/
USC / Research Assistant Prof.                http://www.isi.edu/lsam/
Received on Monday, 15 September 1997 11:16:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC