Alan Wolfe wrote:
> HTML uploads can be a strain on the server since it has to jump
> through extra hoops (the web server) to get onto the server.
>
> FTP is nice and light except it's unencrypted so people can sniff
> username/passwords as well as the data you are uploading and
> downloading.

A lightweight HTTP server and lightweight FTP server are about the
same in terms of load. In fact HTTP was originally designed to be
simpler than FTP and to reduce load on servers.

It's only when you use an all-singing multi-purpose HTTP server, such
as Apache, IIS, or the uploads are sent _through_ the HTTP server to
something else like CGI, or the HTTP server is one of the simple ones
not designed for performance and load, that HTTP generates more load
on the server.

The same is true for FTP servers, but it's unusual to use an FTP
servers to forward data to the equivalent of a CGI application, and
they tend to be written more carefully with server load in mind, so
this is what you tend to see - but it's not a feature of the protocol,
just a feature of the most well known server software. Some FTP
server programs place a heavy load on their server too.

So, you can use either, but if server load is an issue, then for HTTP
you might have to take more care picking server software for the task.

-- Jamie
Received on 2007-12-17