Karl Bongers <kbongers at infinetivity.com> writes:

> > UDP has a lot less overhead and is much faster over a clean/fast network.
> 
> It just seems like they'd have to "re-invent" TCP in the implementation.
> And if you have to re-invent it, then you would have just as much or more
> overhead as TCP.
> 
> I can understand UDP for short blips of information, like SNMP,
> but file transfer(you would think) would be the perfect application for TCP.
> Obviously its not that simple, and considering there is an option to do
> NFS on TCP, I'll bet it's a bit contentious a subject as well.

But NFS isn't for file *transfer*, it's for file *access*.  Each
request tends to be answered by *one* page of file (which is probably
several UDP packets, given ethernet frame size limits).

Now, *ftp* is good for file transfer.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net  /  New TMDA anti-spam in test
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
         New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info