DevNull43,
I appreciate the quick and detailed reply. Sounds like your tests
yielded about what we'd expect, given the factors in play. Generally,
on an unstressed network, LAN-scenarios, we expect ExpeDat and FTP to
come within a few % points of each other in terms of performance.
As you noted, our protocol is really designed for more of the
enterprise WAN space, where we typically see very big data sets going
across larger data paths typically wrought with high congestion,
latency, and packet loss. In those cases, there is usually no
comparison to plain FTP. In essence, MTP/IP is going to strive to
fill the pipe as efficiently and quickly as possible. So, scenarios
where TCP does a fine job of that (LAN, short-hops, etc.), really
don't tend to be great use scenarios for us.
Of course, if we can ever provide any assistance from this angle /
line of thinking, please do not hesitate to keep us in mind and
contact us.
Thank you again for the reply.
Have a nice weekend,
Dana
On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:06 PM, DevNull43 wrote:
Hi Dana,
Thanks a lot for your email, as you known FtpServer is a OpenSource
project from the apache foundation, that I'm using in a simple
application for personal use.
The thread I opened was more focused to implement such high-speed
protocols in the OpenSource community, and asked feedback if anybody
used them, or why none current OpenSource project tried to implement
it's own.
I did download ExpeDat for evaluating if your claims are accurate. I
have to say I only tested ExpeDat and none of the other competitors
due
the facility to download the evaluation, and also because I'm linux
based and your software fits here, so congrats on that side.
Having this said, the test showed less performance than using plain
FTP
connection ( without any kind of SSL ), on a Wireless 802.11g LAN. I
transferred a 700M Ubuntu ISO file a 'bit' faster using plain FTP ( 15
seconds faster).
I repetead the test from my ADSL line (12Mbit) , having the remote
server on a 100Mbit link located in datacenter, with 54 ms latency,
and
FTP file transfered 10 seconds faster as well.
I made probably simple tests, or maybe your protocol has faster
throughput for longer distance WAN with higher latency, more
congestion
networks or etc.
Nevertheless thanks a lot for your email.
Best regards,
DevNull43.
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 14:32 -0400, Dana Merk wrote:
"Dev Null",
I apologize for the "cold" email, but I wanted to follow-up to a
posting I just came across that you posted to ftpserver-users
regarding FTP alternatives. Our company, Data Expedition, Inc., was
mentioned as one of the commercial alternatives.
I thought I'd reach out and see if I could provide you with any
information regarding our ExpeDat, high-performance data transfer,
software. ExpeDat is a high-performance alternative to FTP and is
comprised of client and server software. We do utilize UDP and then
have our own proprietary transport protocol (MTP/IP) piggy-back on
top
which provides advanced flow-control, error-recovery, etc.
We believe our claims to be realistic, unlike those pointed out in
the
original posting citing some of our competitors. To that end, we
typically see, on average across a high-speed WAN, roughly 7x faster
throughput and 10x greater reliability than traditional FTP. Numbers
typically go up from there when you start talking about against SFTP,
scp, etc.
If we can provide any additional insight for you and your colleagues,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Dana
-----------------------------------------------
J.P. Dana Merk
Director of Business Development
Data Expedition, Inc.
617.500.0002, ext. 805 (office)
203.668.9869 (mobile)
Skype: dana_merk
www.dataexpedition.com
