Which lightweight HTTP or FTP Server is good for simple file transfer? [closed]
Questions seeking product, service, or learning material recommendations are off-topic because they tend to become obsolete quickly. Instead, describe your situation and the specific problem you’re trying to solve. Here are a few suggestions on how to properly ask this type of question.
- run in userspace
- be trivial to configure (i.e. no config file, everything doable via command line)
- support username/password
- support continuation of downloads
- support the export of single files instead of whole directories
dbr’s answer to the previous question gets close, but is of course just an ad hoc hack that lacks many useful features.
7 Answers 7
I’m often using this quick Python hack to serve a directory over HTTP.
python -m SimpleHTTPServer & will serve the current directory.
By default, it binds to port 8000.
python -m SimpleHTTPServer 9090 & If you choose a port lower than 1024 on *nix, you might need root privileges, otherwise bind() will fail.
Someone on SO pointed me at Woof. A minimal httpd in python with an interface optimized just for such uses. It doesn’t actually meet all your requirements, but by allowing you to specify the number of times it will connect it allows you to use the «Are you ready? I’m starting the server now.» approach to securing the transfer.
To allow one (1) connection to download thisfile on port 8080, you just run
Here is the rather abused original. If you like it, go vote for Nate.
Also works great for «upload» (in case you need a file from a user that can’t or won’t install a server themselves)
You can try webfs which is available through the Ubuntu repository:
Webfs (a.k.a. webfsd) is a simple HTTP server for purely static content. You can use it to serve the content of an FTP server via HTTP, for example. It can also be used to quickly export some files by starting an httpd server in a few seconds, without editing config files first.
HFS (Http File Server) is file sharing software which allows you to send and receive files. You can limit this sharing to just a few friends, or be open to the whole world. HFS is different from classic file sharing because there is no network. [. ] Since it is actually a web server, your friends can download files as if they were downloading from a website using a web browser.
What’s up with the down votes here? The OP asked for simple http servers, and people have offered them. So what is the problem.
HFS also works great for «upload» (in case you need a file from a user that can’t or won’t install a server themselves)
Please ignore if you are not open to alternatives, but the fact that you are willing to install a HTTP server with no preferences shows me that you want to get the job done of transfering a file more so than how it is done —
May I recommend that you install a FTP server?
It will allow you to pretty much do everything you require and is usually very easy to set up,you can even configure the port to use 80 if that is a requirement.
FTP would of course be fine too, but most FTP servers I know aren’t exactly lightweight and come with plenty of ugly extra baggage that makes them unfit for simple one time file transfers (i.e. require root rights, accounts on the machine for password access, unflexible directory handling, etc.). With Pure-FTPd I couldn’t even figure out how to start it as non-root user.
Agreed. It’s called File Transfer Protocol for a reason. HTTP, on the other hand, is HyperText Transfer Protocol. Chances are you’re not interested in HyperText right now.
FTP is not a stupid idea, but have you a suggestion for one that is a bog simple to set up as the OP has requested?
The advantage of http is that each and every general use computer has a web browser on it, and the user will be comfortable using it. OK, it supports ftp too, but if your going to use a web browser anyway.
Wil, we’re not talking about general purpose servers like Apache here. We’re talking about special-purpose, minimal tools. Woof makes chttpd look heavy.
May I recommend http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib/ ?
It’s light-weight, download the source, and write a Python script(just copy the quick start part on the home page is enough, 5-6 lines, set user name and password, home directory, etc.)
I use it for personal pc to pc file transfer(On Ubuntu Hardy). one known issue (and I can bear it with) is it can’t handle Unicode(non-ASCII) well.
The answer is simple: thttpd . It wins hands-down in performance, memory usage, and security. And by security I mean it’s secure by virtue of competent design and not doing anything stupid, not that it has all sorts of «security» bells and whistles. It’s also near-optimal with respect to size and simplicity.
If you need even smaller and simpler, BusyBox has a httpd applet that might also meet your needs.
I’m not sure if they meet some of your more off requirements like serving single files, but you can do that with a wrapper that puts symlinks in the http root. If you do this with thttpd, however, you’ll have to disable symlink restrictions.
(I know this question is old, but it’s a top result on Google and the existing answers are anything but light-weight.)
What Linux server distro is best for a dedicated webserver and a file server? [closed]
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
I just wanted to know which Linux server distro is most compatible/stable for a dedicated Web Server and a separate dedicated File server. And also please suggest me for a file server what would be best (in a sense of performance, security, and stability) solution ie. FTP, SAMBA etc.
It’s highly subjective. I’d use Debian because I’m most familiar with it, it has a large user base, and it’s well documented. Where do you plan on serving files to?
4 Answers 4
Your question is both vague and highly subjective. Having worked with most of the popular Linux distros, I’ve yet to find a single distro which is ‘perfect’ for any particular need. You should rather approach this topic from a different angle.
- With which Linux distros are you familiar enough to be able to set up the system yourself and provide its ongoing support? You should not choose a distro purely on the basis of recommendation by others if you are not able to provide support for this distro.
- How many other people within your organisation are available and skilled enough to resolve potential issues should you be unavailable? If there is nobody else available, what is the cost and response time associated with outsourcing this support to an external party if required to do so in your absence?
I’d like to expand on 3 of your points:
- Performance: For most purposes, performance is largely dependent on hardware. In some specialized scenarios it may be worthwhile to use a custom-compiled distro such as Gentoo. I have some remarkable use-cases where going the Gentoo route has seen stark performance increases. However, the steep learning curve for Gentoo combined with the mostly minimal performance increases makes it a bad choice for generic environments or environments in which there are no skilled sysadmins available. The standard range of server distros will provide adequate performance in a generic environment: Ubuntu, CentOS, Red Hat, Debian.
- Security: I would argue that security consideration is a moot point in choosing a distro, since the security of a system is largely configuration-dependent. An exception to this is when looking at distros which have long development cycles such as Debian, where major security updates to software may not see the light of day for a long long time if you stick with the standard repositories. The level of security of the system is directly proportional to your knowledge on the workings of the distro and the packages which you will be using.
- Stability: Stability is mostly package-dependent; some distros are known for using packages which are still experimental or not yet well tested. Debian is a great because of its strict adherence to long-term stability, but Ubuntu is not (in terms of stability of individual packages, not the OS itself).
The short of it is that you should choose a distro which you are comfortable in configuring and using on a long-term basis. If you only have experience in using a single distro, then stick with that. If you want to start using a new distro, first stick it onto a test server and get comfortable in using it for a few months.