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