next »

[Andrewboy]

Is there to let someone else have FTP access and protect directories so that they can't upload to some directories.  For example: I have multiple directories and there is only ONE directory that I want them to be able to upload to one directory.

Thanks

[Myles Grey]

No, there is only basic FTP here, none of those advanced options.

[Andrewboy]

So I can't do anything with the "Permissions" on the file manager?  Will that do anything?

[bind]

110mb should seriously consider giving away an anonymous ftp folder with every account anyone can access at any time.

It would really take some of the stress off the httpd and free up some resources allowing people to deploy files through anonymous ftp.


ironically enough, ftp means "file transfer protocol" and its way less resource intensive in terms of server ram and cpu by the way it sends out file packets without cacheing in server ram the way http does.

anyways, what the OP asks cant be done on 110mb in its current configuration.

[bind]

Doing that would probably crash the FTP servers on all the boxes due to over-use. If you want that kind of FTP access, go dedicated/paid.

you might want to refresh your memory on how the ftp protocol was designed to function.

forcing deployables (downloads) through http takes exponentially more server resources than through FTP.

in any case, no matter what protocol, when you try to request data faster than its capable of serving (cpu/ram/throughput/bandwidth-line speed), you have problems.

we always have sluggishness on 110mb now and then, more so on the httpd than the ftp, and although it could be attributed to server ram and cpu affecting both, FTP handling the downloads would use LESS resources than the same through HTTP.

simple fact.

i am not saying its the complete answer to server sluggishness, but it would definately help rather than inhibit.

of course less accounts per box would help too :p

[bind]

ok i am going to attempt to be nice here, but its going to be difficult since your mind has yet to wrap itself around the prosect i posted or the protocols and infomation available, yet you seem to want to defend your previous post in a perceived knowledgable fashion, without the extravagance of said knowledge, or at least the ability to accurately process it into an educated accurate post.

Doing that would probably crash the FTP servers on all the boxes due to over-use.

I'm aware of this,

if you were aware, then why would you posts such an rediculous comment that it might crash the ftp server when its a fact that it would use LESS system resources, thus freeing up a certain percentage of existing resources that could then be alotted to the ftp increase if needed, and since FTP uses much less than HTTP, the end product would be a X-percent leaner enviroment with more resources at its disposal to distribute according to need or requests ?

but there's already issues with specific services on the boxes going down,

what specific issues with what specific services over and above requests exceeding the resources able to process and deliver them?

did I miss that post or are you privy to server information the rest of us are not ?

please ... educate me ... I am all ears and eyes.


sure 1000 things COULD happen, none of which we have any data representation to draw off of to make an educated opinion on, except protocal specifics that tell us the FTP protocol uses much less resources for file deployment than the HTTP protocol ... a simple fact beyond contestation.

If you want that kind of FTP access, go dedicated/paid.

as to me wanting free anonymous ftp on 110mb .... its for the good of 110mb service and its users, not me ... i dont need it here ... i doubt I would use it exept for deploying code and assistance examples ... I already have many of my own ... BUT it certainly would help the servers, help the service, and help the users ... which are my only reasons for posting  it.


its their service .. they can do what they want ... i just made a simple suggestion that would definately help the servers, although its certainly no guarantee agaisnt other problems caused by server requests exceeding the services ability to process and deliver the requests.

[RBCFAQS]

Since you seem to think me technically impared, I've removed my apparently fallacious statements from before. Maybe I'll just stay in the General Chat section rather than give help, if that suits you better?

[mghq]

Bind i hate to say rbcfaqs is right. With how much each box and each box's ftp is usually down it would increase downtime and would be abused.

[bind]

Since you seem to think me technically impared, I've removed my apparently fallacious statements from before. Maybe I'll just stay in the General Chat section rather than give help, if that suits you better?

I do not think you are techically impaired overall. Usually you are accurate and concise, and when presented with differing information you usually take a rational approach, however here, you do not and instead of conceding to the facts, you posted again, inaccurate point(s), even when you were presented with opposing data and information contradicting your previous posts, then you delete your posts, cry like a baby, and threaten to leave the support forum.

Personally I dont care when or where you post, but if you post inaccurate information, then defend it when its proven inaccurate, be prepared to have it challenged regardless what forum you post in.

Just because you defend you original statement and say its so, doesnt make it so.

Same goes for me ... thats why i explained how it works and posted the protocol RFC (http caches in server ram, ftp doesnt and sends packets as requested, meaning a huge difference in resource consumption on busy servers).

that said, you were invited to post the information that caused you to come to your conclusions and how they proved my factual ones wrong.

you decided to take your ball and go home instead, threatening us you shall never return !

Bind i hate to say rbcfaqs is right. With how much each box and each box's ftp is usually down it would increase downtime and would be abused.

then explain in detail why and how he is correct.

be as technical as you feel you need to be to accurately prove your (and his) statements.

oh wait you cant ... becasue you are both wrong.

I have the standards on my side.

ftp is less resource intensive than http ... ftp is more efficient as well.

those using ftp wont be using http for the same resource, so you obtain a net gain of X-percent resources, that can be used by the servers in other areas, even IF the ftp usage increases, you have that extra "pool" of resources to draw from, and since ftp uses less than http, you have a remainder of more left over for server distribution elsewhere.

but then I already stated that a few times ... apparently you didnt read or comprehend it.



you dont have to believe me ... do your own research ... you are sitting in from of the worlds most complete and comprehensive source of information ... you might as well use it, but dont expect there to be any pages like: "whats better ftp or http" ... you might have to dig a bit deeper like reviewing protocols and techical information and whitepapers.

better yet, set up a complete server system with all services running then compare the two via monitoring tools/utilities.


ftp is the preferred file deployment mechanism for a reason.

although your only experience with it may be web hosting uploads, its uses range considerable wider, and its been around for a long time for a reason.

[RBCFAQS]

What you are forgetting is the stability factor for 110mb's servers. If what you proposed was implimented, it would more than likely be abused and cause more instability than there already is, less resource intensive or no. The FTP servers have a limited capacity on these servers due to the massive numbers of users they hold. Now, I'm not just looking at it as crashing the FTP servers, but look at the current downtimes for the MySQL server. Anonymous accounts still have an entry there. Think on it like this, one box holds alot more than just 100 accounts. (500GB hard drives/5GBper account = 100 accounts). They actually hold upwards of (Guessing) at least ten times that number on each server for the low side, and ten times that again for the high side. So adding between 1000 and 10000 new FTP accounts would add to the MySQL server usage, making it less stable. That could very easily add to the down times on the MySQL AND FTP servers. (No MySQL= No Logins for FTP or CP).

Now, with that said, while yes, the FTP protocol it's self was designed to be as non-intensive as possible, while still giving the most reliable means of transferring files, that does not mean that the other parts of the server, which the FTP server relies on, would be able to keep up with the demands of it.

Now, Im not crying like a baby or being irrational, but it was obviously a situation in which I knew i was right, and you knew you were right, so I said F*** it, removed my half the argument, and posted the first thing that came to my mind. I get easily frustrated when someone tells me I'm wrong and it's something technical, not to mention that I hate having to explain things to someone who should know it already.

[bind]

I have to disagree with your reasoning.

Pure-FTPd can allow for anonymous accounts when there is the existence of the 'user' account and/or 'ftp' account.

The resource hit for mysql simply checking the existance of that user with no other weighty mysql queries would be quite minimal, and I would wager that it would be considerably lower resource consumption than whats left over moving downloadable to ftp. Dont forget, its only authenticating the existance of the user name to serve an anonymous ftp ... not the password or quota or any other data as FTPQUOTA holds that data.

As to stability factors, in my opinion stability would only increase, and keep increasing as more and more users move to anonymous ftp for any deployable files. Thats a considerable performance gain the more users who decide to use ftp to deploy downloadables.

As I previously stated, you dont have to believe me. Research the technology for yourself. No matter what way you slice it you are gaining resources that can be distributed elsewhere.

Compare the resource consumption of the ftp server using mysql in a single small query to authenticate the usernames existance and downloading the file to the user in packets, against the httpd cacheing the file and spitting it out to the user. THe larger the file and the more files handled by ftp instead of http, the resource gain in increased, sometimes exponentially.

It's why I always set up anonymous ftp and provide a structure for clients to deploy all their files using anonymous ftp.

I wouldnt be making the suggestion if it wouldnt provide a performance increase.

Lastly, in the case of a flood attempt in targeting a large file, since ftp handles the file on the packet level, a file flood wouldnt bring a ftp server to its knees as it so often does with http, because ftp doesnt cache the file like http does prior to deployment.

we could go round and round for days on this.