Subject:
|
Re: 6 months!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:38:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5170 times
|
| |
|
|
I do have a question regarding ftp downloads.....
I was advised to find an ftp site to download this file. If, in the event
I experienced the same problems downloading again, I could just go to
the site again, and pick up where I had been "let off." I tried this,
and interrupted the transfer at 100kb. When reconnecting, it just opened
the 100kb that I had already downloaded, and made no further attempt to
download the rest of the file. Is it something I did, or was it the browser?
It was Netscape Communicator 4.2, BTW.
Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> Larry Pieniazek <lpien@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Mike Stanley wrote:
> > <24M ?? admin wrath>
> >
> > I guess I'm confused. What's the difference between ftping a file from a
> > site and receiving it in the mail? Same bandwidth consumption, really.
> > Or am I missing something? I defer to your knowledge since I know you
> > admin sites...
>
> Well, generally speaking mail servers are "meant" to handle lots of
> little files, really tiny files on average. I don't know about most
> places, but a lot of the boxes I've seen have things like mailhost.x.x
> running on totally separate machines from ftp.x.x and the like.
>
> I don't admin any sites directly, I mainly just observe and listen. I
> do know from playing with SMTP and POP packages, though, that some of
> them have defaults for what to accept and reject, and one of the
> criteria is size. Most of our big multi-user servers are Unix-based,
> though, and I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to Unix, so maybe
> someone more experienced could jump in and tell me how flawed my
> assumptions and reasoning are.
>
> Why burden a mail server that might have a thousand POP clients
> attaching to it at any given time (probably more for our main
> popserver at utk) with a 24 meg file that your average POP reader may
> or may not decide to sit through the transfer?
>
> The bandwidth really isn't the issue - it's what the machine serving
> out mail is meant to do versus what the machine serving up ftp is
> meant to do. I don't do a lot of comparisons, but I know from
> personal experience that on the same machine with the same connection,
> grabbing a huge (1+ meg) attachment with my POP client takes longer
> than with an ftp client from the same account.
>
> Probably moot, though. I bet the person's SMTP server wouldn't allow
> a 24+ meg attachment anyway.
>
> --
> Unofficial listing of weekly US Lego Shop at Home phone specials
> http://www.lugnet.com/lsahs/ (discontinued thru Holiday season)
> 800-835-4386 (S@H USA) / 800-267-5346 ext 222 (S@H Canada)
> www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: 6 months!
|
| (...) Well, first I wouldn't use Communicator to ftp files, although it may be capable of rudimentary ftp commands. I would download a graphical ftp client like CuteFTP or BulletProof, both of which have resume capability. The server he's running (...) (28 years ago, 24-Nov-98, to lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: 6 months!
|
| (...) You might also try the program GetRight: (URL) is great for downloading files - especially large ones. -- Terry K -- (28 years ago, 25-Nov-98, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 6 months!
|
| (...) Well, generally speaking mail servers are "meant" to handle lots of little files, really tiny files on average. I don't know about most places, but a lot of the boxes I've seen have things like mailhost.x.x running on totally separate machines (...) (28 years ago, 24-Nov-98, to lugnet.starwars)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
