nanog mailing list archives
Re: EMAIL != FTP
From: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom EU net>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 10:10:03 -0700
But for a little extra SMTP handshaking at the start, there is no efficiency difference in transfer rate between SMTP and FTP. Probably the same is true for HTTP though I've not looked.I think you missed the fact that sending files via SMTP is incredibly inefficient. Any files sent via SMTP have to be encoded which can balloon the transmission up 30%+. That is an incredible waste of bandwidth on a
After all, nmodep compress it back to the original size while transferring. The rate loss is 5 - 10%, not 30 - 40. For LAN, this volumes are not large (1 - 2 Mb).
10MB file. Also, remember that SMTP usually relays, so the message is bounced between 1-8 servers along the way (or more), more bandwidth and resources wasted. *sigh*
-- Robert Blayzor IP Network Engineer, BOFH BiznessOnline.com, Inc. rblayzor () thebiz net noc () thebiz net http://www.thebiz.net/ FreeBSD, Putting the 'Operating' back into OS! -- http://www.freebsd.org/
Current thread:
- Re: EMAIL != FTP, (continued)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Jim Mercer (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Scott Francis (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: cleaning up MIME external-body attachments.... Greg A. Woods (May 26)
- Re: cleaning up MIME external-body attachments.... Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Craig Partridge (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Jan P Tietze (May 25)
- RE: EMAIL != FTP Robert Blayzor (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Craig Partridge (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Jim Mercer (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Alexei Roudnev (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Steve Sobol (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Mitch Halmu (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Mitch Halmu (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)