|
|
Posted by Toby Inkster on 12/06/05 10:34
Marc wrote:
> Assuming by 'browser support' you mean some kind of HTML-based file
> manager, there wouldn't be a lot in it, using FTP would be marginally
> faster, because it doesn't have the added HTTP traffic to load the
> 'browser support'.
But HTTP can take advantage of Gzip compression, whereas FTP can't.
This compression won't make much difference for JPEG images, MP3s, etc,
but can be useful on large plain text or HTML files.
That said, FTP is a much nicer interface than a web-based file manager.
Even better ways of transferring files are Rsync, SFTP and SCP (in roughly
that order).
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|