HTTP vs FTP upload

Question

I am building a large website where members will be allowed to upload content (images, videos) up to 20MB of size (maybe a little less like 15MB, we haven't settled on a final upload limit yet but it will be somewhere between 10-25MB).

My question is, should I go with HTTP or FTP upload in this case. Bear in mind that 80-90% of uploads will be smaller size like cca 1-3MB but from time to time some members will also want to upload large files (10MB+).

Is HTTP uploading reliable enough for such large files or should I go with FTP? Is there a noticeable speed difference between HTTP and FTP while uploading files?

I am asking because I'm using Zend Framework which already has HTTP adapter for file uploads, in case I choose FTP I would have to write my own adapter for it.

Thanks!

Answer 1

HTTP definitely puts less of a burden on your clients. A lot of places have proxies or firewalls that block all FTP traffic (in or out).

Answer 2

The big advantage of HTTP is that it goes over firewalls and it's very easy to encrypt---just use HTTPS on port 443 instead of HTTP on port 80. Both go through proxies and firewalls. And these days it's pretty easy to upload a 20MB files over HTTP/HTTPS using a POST.

The problem with HTTP is that it is not restartable for uploads. If you get 80% of the file sent and then there is a failure, you will need to restart at the beginning. That's why vendors are increasingly using flash-based, java-based or javascript-based uploaders and downloaders. These systems can see how much of the file has been sent, send a MAC to make sure that it has arrived properly, and resend the parts that are missing.

A MAC is more important than you might think. TCP checksums are only 32 bits, so there is a 1-in-4-billion chance of an error not being detected. That potentially happens a lot with today's internet.