Re: FTP versus Copy
From: Greg Stigers (gregstigers_at_spamcop.net)
Date: 02/20/04
- Next message: Steven Liu: "RE: nltest error"
- Previous message: XS11E: "Re: MSConfig missing"
- In reply to: arbeetee: "FTP versus Copy"
- Next in thread: Firmbyte: "RE: FTP versus Copy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:52:39 -0500
Remember what copy was meant for: copying small, local files. But ftp is not
without its own issues, not the least of which is security. The password is
both stored and sent in plain text, neither of which is a good thing. I
would recommend WebDAV over ftp. But if you have the NT or 2000 Resource Kit
available, I recommend robocopy. It is meant to tolerate network delays, and
can retry a configurable number of times after a configurable delay.
And since this WAN is presumably "in-house", I very much recommend that you
benchmark compressing the file before sending. Compare time to send, versus
time to compress, send, and decompress. Even if you break even, you have
less worries that network issues are going to cause your copy operation to
fail.
Greg Stigers, MCSA
this space for rent
- Next message: Steven Liu: "RE: nltest error"
- Previous message: XS11E: "Re: MSConfig missing"
- In reply to: arbeetee: "FTP versus Copy"
- Next in thread: Firmbyte: "RE: FTP versus Copy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
