Vista and file sharing.....

[VinDSL]

Anyway, what would you guys suggest the OP do - punt?

 

[Nothinman]

Anyway, what would you guys suggest the OP do - punt?

Just setup accounts with passwords and use normal SMB/CIFs filesharing.

But you still haven't pointed out the data integrity checking in the FTP client source that I've linked above.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
But you still haven't pointed out the data integrity checking in the FTP client source that I've linked above.

PM me...

 

[VinDSL]

Pssst!

Let the paranoia begin...

 

[Nothinman]

PM me...

Uh no, if you can really prove me and bsobel wrong why wouldn't you want to do it in public?

 

[VinDSL]

Who said anything about bsobel?

However, we PM each other all the time...

Hard to believe, I know!

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: bsobel
FTP is no way deals with data corruption. Again, per RFC 959 it provides no bit level error correction.

Sure it does!

The only problem is... FTP resends from the point of error, so (if it happens early on) it can double the amount of bandwidth required to send a file.

Is this a problem on a home LAN?

Incorrect, there is nothing in the FTP protocol which determines that the file contents on the server are identical to the client. It presumes TCP/IP handles all error correction. Again, we've referenced the RFC, please show where we are wrong. Otherwiswe, apologize or stop posting.

Bill

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Pssst!

Let the paranoia begin...

This appears to me to be both user and mod baiting.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Anyway, what would you guys suggest the OP do - punt?

Asked and answered. A) Post a better description of the problem. B) Most likely case set a password on all accounts used and make sure the username/password match across machines.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Well better ftp clients / servers can support restarting a download which has been interrupted part way through so the server can send the REST of the file that the receiver lacks instead of sending the whole thing over again.

To the extent that FTP is specified to run over TCP it does by that specification gain general reliability against data transmission errors and is guaranteed in-order correct data receipt once it gets the data stream from the TCP layer.

Of course you can always fool a TCP checksum with certain kinds of errors, but that is unlikely.

I just can't imagine why anyone would bother to setup a FTP server instead of just running two BT clients in this day and age on a windows box, though. If they were using UNIX they would've had it done already over SCP/RSYNC instead of fretting over Windows Simple File Shredding.

 

[George P Burdell]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Most likely case set a password on all accounts used and make sure the username/password match across machines.

Hehehe... this actually solves a lot of problems.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

PM me...

Uh no, if you can really prove me and bsobel wrong why wouldn't you want to do it in public?

Its his MO. Post wrong information, and when thats pointed out he starts attacking your for it. I already gave him the RC and even the quote FROM the RFC, its pretty clear what FTP does and doesn't do. He just isn't technical enough to understand what it all means.

Bill

 

[stash]

He just isn't technical enough to understand what it all means.

He's also a troll.

 

[htne]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

2. FTP offers error CORRECTION, other protocols simply offer error detection. FTP will keep resending until it gets it right! [/list]

I can guarantee, if you're passing BIG files across machines using a non-error correcting protocol, you WILL have errors...

Don't believe me?

Move a 1 GB ZIP file across machines using something other than FTP, and test it for integrity - let me know what it says...

I move very large files (.iso and .img files, images of entire single layer DVDs) up to 4.7 gigabytes in size. I move them across my home network (wired gigabit ethernet), using cut-and-paste in Windows Explorer. I have 3 systems all running Windows XP, all with gigabit ethernet. For the first few months, I kept checking the images afterward with .md5 and .shasum integrity checking. None were ever corrupted. That's right, I checked probably 100, with zero errors, and then quit checking. You do not know what you are talking about.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: htne

Originally posted by: VinDSL

2. FTP offers error CORRECTION, other protocols simply offer error detection. FTP will keep resending until it gets it right! [/list]

I can guarantee, if you're passing BIG files across machines using a non-error correcting protocol, you WILL have errors...

Don't believe me?

Move a 1 GB ZIP file across machines using something other than FTP, and test it for integrity - let me know what it says...

I move very large files (.iso and .img files, images of entire single layer DVDs) up to 4.7 gigabytes in size. I move them across my home network (wired gigabit ethernet), using cut-and-paste in Windows Explorer. I have 3 systems all running Windows XP, all with gigabit ethernet. For the first few months, I kept checking the images afterward with .md5 and .shasum integrity checking. None were ever corrupted. That's right, I checked probably 100, with zero errors, and then quit checking. You do not know what you are talking about.

If you pass large data around with an non-error correcting protocol over a large enough data set you are likely to get errors. This is due to the fact that the TCP/IP checksum isn't very robust. However what is wrong in his statement is:

a) FTP is not an error correcting protocol.

b) Signed SMB (which is what your using) is error correcting. So it makes sense you would never see this issue, its handled transparently for you.

Bill

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: bsobel
If you pass large data around with an non-error correcting protocol over a large enough data set you are likely to get errors. This is due to the fact that the TCP/IP checksum isn't very robust.

Speaking of robustness, here are some interesting facts...


SOURCE

Our safe FTP data center or FTP data hosting site is housed within the top Internet center in the world, the San Francisco / Silicon Valley area. Over 39% of US Internet traffic, and 30% of World's Internet traffic either originates or terminates here.

SOURCE

Q. If FTP is so great, why isn't everybody using it?

A. Actually, almost everybody does use FTP, they just don't know it. Many of the large files (images, programs, etc.) people download from the Internet actually come from what are called "FTP servers".

My larger point is, why mess around with a weak (MS) imitation of the real thing?

FTP is where its at - always has been - always will be! It's the glue that holds the web together...

I provided a link to an excellent *FREE* (and easy to setup) FTP server program.

Why NOT use FTP on a piddly little home network? The big dogs aren't afraid of it!

Hell, that's what everybody is using 99.9% of the time anyway, "they just don't know it"...

 

[bsobel]

Speaking of robustness, here are some interesting facts...

That fact that some company selling FTP sites is in a large data center has nothing at all to do with the robustness of the FTP protocol. Neither does the amount of traffic passing thru that data center.

Vin, pull head back out, you made a 100% false statement. You said that FTP was error detecting and SMB wasn't, you got it backwards. Deal with it and move on. You look like an idiot now trying to pull your weekly 'cry cry I was right see...' routine.

A. Actually, almost everybody does use FTP, they just don't know it. Many of the large files (images, programs, etc.) people download from the Internet actually come from what are called "FTP servers".

Yep, for internet wide transfer of public content its still widely used. It was favored for some time until the emergence of HTTP.

Hell, that's what everybody is using 99.9% of the time anyway, "they just don't know it"...

Another COMPLTEELY false statement from you. FTP does not make up 99.9% of internet traffic, so please stop with the made up facts.

Vin, YOU WERE WRONG. Get over youself.

Further, you have yet again derailed a thread into one of your rants. Your welcome to participate in the thread if your offering to help fix the OP problem (as many of us are). Otherwise, don't post.

Bill

 

[Nothinman]

Speaking of robustness, here are some interesting facts...

There's also still the fact that you can't point out where the data integrity checks are in the wget source that I linked to last night. Until you can do that you should just concede that you're wrong and move on.

My larger point is, why mess around with a weak (MS) imitation of the real thing?

Because it's not an imitation, it's more convenient and it really does have error correction unlike FTP.

I provided a link to an excellent *FREE* (and easy to setup) FTP server program.

And every Windows machine already had a free and easy to use CIFS server so why waste time with 3rd party software?

Hell, that's what everybody is using 99.9% of the time anyway, "they just don't know it"...

So now you're going to tell me that HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP, etc are also just subsets of FTP because I would guess that those protocols are used more often by most people than FTP.

 

[nerp]

Suggesting to use FTP for file sharing on a home network is simply ridiculous. It's a lot more complicated setting up an ftp server (i'd only suggest glftpd or ioftpd) and configuring client machines with ftp clients (flashfxp) than just learning how to share files properly.

And if FTP has error correction, why do scene release groups use sfv? Because FTP/FXP transfers are notorious for corrupting and using a server-side integrity check is essential. Otherwise, one corrupted rar can spread unchecked to dozens of servers.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: nerp
Suggesting to use FTP for file sharing on a home network is simply ridiculous. It's a lot more complicated setting up an ftp server...

Let's test the theory...

At 5:08 PM, I downloaded the the latest version of Cerberus FTP and installed it on my lappy.

At 5:13 PM, I had it installed and running...

Then, I went over to my wife's machine and used IE to FTP into my Vista lappy.

I took a screenie of my laptop and saved it to my FTP root.

Then, I took a screenie of my wife's W2K Pro machine, after I downloaded the file.

Finally, I combined the two screenies using PSP, and UPLOADED IT to my server - yes, using SCP.

Let's see, I'm almost done with this post...

Hrm...

5:43 PM

That's wasn't too bad, was it?

I STILL suggest the OP does the same...

 

[nerp]

Here's what I did..

Double click on network. Double click on Sophie's computer. Double click on her shared folder. Enter a PW. Drag. Let go of mouse button. Done. Took about 8 seconds.

Looks like you're about 30 minutes slower.

 

[VinDSL]

LoL!

I was just looking at the pic...

That's UDC time you're seeing - not local time.

Thought I should clarify that, all things considered.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: nerp
Here's what I did..

Double click on network. Double click on Sophie's computer. Double click on her shared folder. Enter a PW. Drag. Let go of mouse button. Done. Took about 8 seconds.

Looks like you're about 30 minutes slower.

Ok that was hillarious. But be carefull, no need to feed the troll, he'll keep yapping and be gone soon.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: nerp
Here's what I did..

Double click on network. Double click on Sophie's computer. Double click on her shared folder. Enter a PW. Drag. Let go of mouse button. Done. Took about 8 seconds.

Just curious...

What if Sophie wants to transfer files to/from work - not just the 'other room'?

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Ok that was hillarious. But be carefull, no need to feed the troll, he'll keep yapping and be gone soon.

He was 100% wrong too! Why don't you attack him?

The D/L & install took 5 minutes...