I have observed similar results but I haven't tested it like this yet.
On Nov 6, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Steve Luebbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, I've done a lot additional testing and here are the results.
We currently have a GlobalScape FTP Server in our network up and
running. I ran two transfers to it, each with 35 small files, one
in active and one in passive mode. Both transfers took approx 3
seconds to complete. Then I took Apache FTPServer and installed it
on the same machine and ran the same tests to it. Passive took 3
seconds and active took around 156 seconds. This test eliminates my
theory that it's network or pc related.
Below is a small clip from the log file during the active transfer
that took a long time.
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:32,828 [erick] [192.168.1.213] RECEIVED:
PORT 192,168,1,213,194,107
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:32,828 [erick] [192.168.1.213] SENT: 200
Command PORT okay.
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:32,828 [erick] [192.168.1.213] RECEIVED:
STOR /PERFORMANCE/DB_CSV_FTP.XML
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:37,328 [erick] [192.168.1.213] File
upload : erick - /performance/db_csv_ftp.xml
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:37,328 [erick] [192.168.1.213] SENT: 150
File status okay; about to open data connection.
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:37,328 [erick] [192.168.1.213] SENT: 226
Transfer complete.
As you can see there is a 5 second delay in there only during Active
connections. If you need any additional information please let me
know.
Thanks in advance!!
Steve
Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Steve Luebbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Has anyone noticed a difference in performance between FTPing in
Active mode
vs. Passive mode?
I have two laptops on the same network:
1) Client - Windows Vista, firewall disabled, using FileZilla
2) Apache FTPServer - Windows XP, firewall disabled
When FileZilla is set to passive it is relatively fast. When I
switch it to
active it is 2 times to 3 times slower.
I've done quite a bit of research and playing around but I haven't
been able
to determine why. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this
for me...
Do you see the same behavior with other clients? I can't see anything
obvious in our code that would cause this but I don't have any
numbers
to back that we don't have a problem in this area.
/niklas
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3592 (20081106) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
