I'm confused. In what way is this unlike a wired protocol? You are still transferring a file directly from your home PC to your laptop. Unless FolderShare is doing some funky on-the-fly compression (and one hopes encryption too) with smart re-try on failure in some way particularly suited to mobile connections, in what way is this not like using an SFTP client? I appreciate the advantages in things like synchronisation and sharing, these can be tedious to set up with SFTP, but unless it works out your connection speed and type and alters the file transfer accordingly (packet sizes, retries, etc.) automatically, what would be the difference in transfer speed and usablility if all you are doing is copyinging a few files?
SSH and the like tunnel other protocols - which adds a considerable overhead over narrow bandwidth links. They're also optimised for wired connections - large packet sizes and low latency.
More lightweight solutions don't tunnel, don't add overhead, and tend to be designed to work for smaller packet sizes and higher latencies.
Hmmm. Unfortunately, since FolderShare provide no details on their protocol, it isn't clear what the overheads in their protocol are, nor whether it makes specific provision for mobile users.
ssh doesn't "tunnel" data transfers; it uses exactly the same SSL encryption that a web browser does, and probably with less overhead because it's not dealing with RFC822 headers, cookies, and the like. And it uses zlib for compression. Of course, I don't know what else is going on with Foldershare, since it's proprietary. They might be doing something like rsync, which would help with synchronizing large files with small changes, but probably not otherwise.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
More lightweight solutions don't tunnel, don't add overhead, and tend to be designed to work for smaller packet sizes and higher latencies.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)