G+_Neil Carmichael Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 I work in support for content delivery network, the management have announced they are going to let let customers upload the thier files now using thier browsers (rather than with a file transfer program) I can see its great in theory, but I can't help thinking that uploading files that are 100's of mb in size is asking a lot of a browser. Can anyone help me put my fears aside or let least let me know what to watch out for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Reese Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Dropbox, Google Drive, YouTube, ownCloud/nextCloud.... It's being done reliably already by many, many services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Travis Hershberger Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 The underlying protocols are all the same. What makes you think anything is actually different between a special program and a web browser using the same protocols? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Akira Yamanita Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 If file resuming hasn't been implemented, it may be a problem with clients with less than stellar connections. It works well in general though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Neil Carmichael Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 Akira Yamanita yeah, some of our customers are in India and are getting 300kbs :-( however as the new system will be using amazon s3 it may get a lot faster (as s3 leaves the Internet for Amazon's network in as few as hops as possible) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Neil Carmichael Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 Travis Hershberger the underlying protocol may be the same at the lowest level of the stack, but at the higher level you have the bloat of http and variety of browsers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Neil Carmichael Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 Ben Reese the question I guess is are they using it pretty much as it comes or are they adding thier own "secret sauce" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Reese Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Neil Carmichael? ownCloud/nextCloud is open source (which is why there's 2 nearly identical products). I've uploaded 300+ MB files to my server from ADSL connections with 700 Kbps upload speeds. Not ideal, but the server did fine. Using the web browser probably will have more overhead, but I'm sure it's all in the name of being user friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Travis Hershberger Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Neil Carmichael i0.kym-cdn.com That makes no sense. HTML is another protocol, it has nothing to do with FTP, SFTP, SCP, etc. A web browser might be less efficient (Chrome eating RAM), but it's not going to effect upload/download speed. Why are you irrationally afraid of web browsers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Neil Carmichael Posted December 9, 2017 Author Share Posted December 9, 2017 thanks for everyones positive comments, II have done some more googling and have found there are some javascript librarys to side-step http shortcomings for this application such as resumablejs.com - Resumable.js, JavaScript magic for simultaneous, stable and resumable uploads armed with this I will find out what the programmers are using. I kmnwo I seem cynical its simply that part of working in support in identifying and minamising risk.and potential problems. Thanks again, you are all awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts