HTTP vs SOCKS
- Thread starter proxymesh
- Start date
Aaric
Elite Member
- Mar 7, 2010
- 3,990
- 2,322
Socks are better, Faster and more anonymous 
SOCKS allows to work with any (version SOCKS 4 - with TCP, SOCKS 5 - with TCP and UDP) protocols. A socks proxy simply transfers data from a client to a server, not penetrating into this data contents (therefore it can work with HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP3, NNTP, etc.).
As SOCKS (as it was already marked above) transfers all data from a client to a server, nothing adding from itself, from the point of view of a web-server, a socks proxy is a client. Therefore anonymity of this type of proxy servers is really always absolute.
SOCKS allows to work with any (version SOCKS 4 - with TCP, SOCKS 5 - with TCP and UDP) protocols. A socks proxy simply transfers data from a client to a server, not penetrating into this data contents (therefore it can work with HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP3, NNTP, etc.).
As SOCKS (as it was already marked above) transfers all data from a client to a server, nothing adding from itself, from the point of view of a web-server, a socks proxy is a client. Therefore anonymity of this type of proxy servers is really always absolute.
socks by far aaric basically covered it but one additional thing that needs to emphasized is socks4a and socks5 can proxy the dns request as well. you should be caching this anyway so as not to flood the network with dns requests, but its definitely way better for your hosting company to never see the dns queries you make.
HTTP proxies DNS requests as well, since the DNS lookup of the remote site is done by the proxy server so it can fetch the page. Is socks behavior different somehow?
justone
BANNED
- Oct 12, 2008
- 1,520
- 1,054
Would like to add a correction:
SOCKS are not 'faster' than HTTP proxies but they are light and require less CPU/memory.
In general they are pretty equal but if the HTTP proxy supports caching (either memory or disk caching) then it can outperform SOCKS easily.
Caching HTTP proxies are able to load content faster than you do and often in a more efficient manner than your browser/application.
That means the proxy is preloading data (often from a fast uplink) and you can receive the data in a continued stream.
So HTTP proxies can be quite faster than SOCKS. Both protocols have their right to exist.
When doing WWW related stuff I'd stick to HTTP, when accessing other protocls SOCKS might be the better choice.
SOCKS are not 'faster' than HTTP proxies but they are light and require less CPU/memory.
In general they are pretty equal but if the HTTP proxy supports caching (either memory or disk caching) then it can outperform SOCKS easily.
Caching HTTP proxies are able to load content faster than you do and often in a more efficient manner than your browser/application.
That means the proxy is preloading data (often from a fast uplink) and you can receive the data in a continued stream.
So HTTP proxies can be quite faster than SOCKS. Both protocols have their right to exist.
When doing WWW related stuff I'd stick to HTTP, when accessing other protocls SOCKS might be the better choice.