FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-22-2012, 11:39 AM
"Weaver"
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

>
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:37:43 -0700, Weaver wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I regularly log 40-47Kb/s on updates.. Cheers,
>
>
> And so do we all... The problem here is not the network bandwidth,
> it's that some parts of the update process have to download a lot of
> small files (a few KiB each). Each file involves a negotiation
> process that needs several round-trips and one or more file-directory
> lookups on the part of both the server and the client. The round-
> trips may be on the order of hundreds of milliseconds, so the time to
> retrieve a 4 KiB file can be on the order of a half second or more.
> That translates to 8KiB/s for that particular file. Sad, but it's a
> fact of life on a global-scale packet switched network.
>
> Look at the reported speed when downloading a large package. Here you
> have the opportunity to take full advantage of a big pipe and large
> windows on each end to fill the pipe. Your limiting rate here is more
> likely to be the ability of the server to get your file off its disk
> at the same time as it's getting other files for other clients off the
> same disk.
>
> For example, I find that getting security updates is much slower
> (factor of 4 or 5, often) than getting new packages from one of the
> big mirrors. The "security.debian.org" server seems to be a
> bottleneck. There's a design trade-off here -- between getting
> security stuff posted and available quickly (in favor of a single
> server or at most a small number of servers), and getting it out at
> high bandwidth (in favor of mirroring it to lots of servers with the
> attendant polling delays) the Debian folks have opted to get security
> stuff available quickly but at a lower bandwidth, and regular package
> updates available with some delay but at higher bandwidth.
>
> Hope this helps to understand what you're seeing.

Yes, I understand this, Rick, but even with Cameleon's suggestion of
downloading a larger file from Oracle's servers, at a quiet time of night,
a 64 MB download (Mysql's community edition, X86_64) still takes one
minute and seven seconds.

I understand also, that many can't get these speeds, but when you are
paying for 100MB/s and not even getting ADSL1 speeds, the ethic bothers
me.

I've worked for myself, predominantly, since the age of 17 and no client
would ever be able to say that they got short-changed by me.
It's unethical business, pure and simple.
This goes against the grain.

There was another post from somebody, also, that I deleted accidentally
before replying and, yes, I understand the difference between 'bits' and
'bytes', etc.
A byte is 8 bits so you are never going to get a Kilobit.
I'm just a little lazy with upper and lowercase sometimes, that's all.
Regards,

Weaver
--
"I invite you to name a society that created a secret prison
system, outside the rule of law, where torture takes place,
that sooner or later didn't turn the abuse against it's own
citizens. -- Naomi Wolf - October 11, 2007


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8f6f19d00a2776ffa1b75e2ec2ba370e.squirrel@fruiteat er.riseup.net">http://lists.debian.org/8f6f19d00a2776ffa1b75e2ec2ba370e.squirrel@fruiteat er.riseup.net
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:31 PM
Camaleón
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:39:46 -0700, Weaver wrote:

>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:37:43 -0700, Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I regularly log 40-47Kb/s on updates.. Cheers,

>> And so do we all...

Rick, careful when quoting...

> Yes, I understand this, Rick, but even with Cameleon's suggestion of
> downloading a larger file from Oracle's servers, at a quiet time of
> night, a 64 MB download (Mysql's community edition, X86_64) still takes
> one minute and seven seconds.

Weaver, you don't have to center your attention on the time it takes but
the download speed (KiB/MiB per second). As I said, using Oracle servers
I can get up to 10 MiB/s which is the best number I have ever got.

> I understand also, that many can't get these speeds, but when you are
> paying for 100MB/s and not even getting ADSL1 speeds, the ethic bothers
> me.

That's a common feeling from users with high speed links, but there is
not much we can do, simply put: todays Internet is not prepared for
providing that speeds but in counted sites/hosts :-(

Anyway, remember that you are paying for 100 Mbps that is around 12 MiB/s.

> I've worked for myself, predominantly, since the age of 17 and no client
> would ever be able to say that they got short-changed by me. It's
> unethical business, pure and simple. This goes against the grain.

(...)

Can you please provide the results of this speed test?

http://www.speedtest.net/

I get:

Ping: 3 ms
Download: 86.09 Mbps
Upload: 9.96 Mbps

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k12qfo$6m0$5@ger.gmane.org
 
Old 08-22-2012, 08:29 PM
"Weaver"
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:39:46 -0700, Weaver wrote:
>
>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:37:43 -0700, Weaver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I regularly log 40-47Kb/s on updates.. Cheers,
>
>>> And so do we all...
>
> Rick, careful when quoting...
>
>> Yes, I understand this, Rick, but even with Cameleon's suggestion of
>> downloading a larger file from Oracle's servers, at a quiet time of
>> night, a 64 MB download (Mysql's community edition, X86_64) still takes
>> one minute and seven seconds.
>
> Weaver, you don't have to center your attention on the time it takes but
> the download speed (KiB/MiB per second). As I said, using Oracle servers
> I can get up to 10 MiB/s which is the best number I have ever got.
>
>> I understand also, that many can't get these speeds, but when you are
>> paying for 100MB/s and not even getting ADSL1 speeds, the ethic bothers
>> me.
>
> That's a common feeling from users with high speed links, but there is
> not much we can do, simply put: todays Internet is not prepared for
> providing that speeds but in counted sites/hosts :-(
>
> Anyway, remember that you are paying for 100 Mbps that is around 12 MiB/s.

If you are referring to the download I mention, it's not even 1 MB/s.
>
>> I've worked for myself, predominantly, since the age of 17 and no client
>> would ever be able to say that they got short-changed by me. It's
>> unethical business, pure and simple. This goes against the grain.
>
> (...)
>
> Can you please provide the results of this speed test?
>
> http://www.speedtest.net/
>
> I get:
>
> Ping: 3 ms
> Download: 86.09 Mbps
> Upload: 9.96 Mbps

I get:

Ping: 69 ms
Download: 27.71 Mb/s
Upload: 2.28 Mb/s

Regards and thanks,

Weaver
--
"I invite you to name a society that created a secret prison
system, outside the rule of law, where torture takes place,
that sooner or later didn't turn the abuse against it's own
citizens. -- Naomi Wolf - October 11, 2007


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 29343cfb7afd889e38f001ee92c975d1.squirrel@fulvetta .riseup.net">http://lists.debian.org/29343cfb7afd889e38f001ee92c975d1.squirrel@fulvetta .riseup.net
 
Old 08-23-2012, 06:12 AM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

On Mi, 22 aug 12, 13:29:52, Weaver wrote:
>
> Ping: 69 ms
> Download: 27.71 Mb/s
> Upload: 2.28 Mb/s

Ok, still far away from the advertised 100 Mb/s, but not that bad. Did
you do the test with the recommended server or did you try also other
ones?

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 08-23-2012, 06:41 AM
"Weaver"
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

> On Mi, 22 aug 12, 13:29:52, Weaver wrote:
>>
>> Ping: 69 ms
>> Download: 27.71 Mb/s
>> Upload: 2.28 Mb/s
>
> Ok, still far away from the advertised 100 Mb/s, but not that bad. Did
> you do the test with the recommended server or did you try also other
> ones?

I tried two and the cross-comparison was fairly even.

I've also noticed, since I've been making some noise, that the speed has
picked up a little and remained reasonably constant for over a day now, so
the situation is not as much out of their control as they would make out.
Regards,

Weaver

--
"I invite you to name a society that created a secret prison
system, outside the rule of law, where torture takes place,
that sooner or later didn't turn the abuse against it's own
citizens. -- Naomi Wolf - October 11, 2007


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 38e5c033ec935c915de085feef261dcc.squirrel@fulvetta .riseup.net">http://lists.debian.org/38e5c033ec935c915de085feef261dcc.squirrel@fulvetta .riseup.net
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:04 AM
lina
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

I have a little off-this-thread questions.

Once I used the wget to download one file from debian repository, on
another terminal I with to use the wget to get another file at the same
time from the same repository.

I was discouraged to do that, and was also told that, two wget
downloading would deduce the downloading speed, I should have waited one
finished before download another one.

It's happened two years ago, but I still remembered that suggestions.
Even later in my life I still download two or more at the same time.

Here my question is that, is it true that open two wget will affect the
downloading speed? better one by one, just suspect it.


Thanks,


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5035D5E3.7030805@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/5035D5E3.7030805@gmail.com
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:34 AM
Bob Proulx
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

lina wrote:
> Once I used the wget to download one file from debian repository, on
> another terminal I with to use the wget to get another file at the same
> time from the same repository.

And if you needed both files then that seems fine to me.

> I was discouraged to do that, and was also told that, two wget
> downloading would deduce the downloading speed, I should have waited one
> finished before download another one.

*Should* is too strong. It doesn't hurt anything to download two
files at the same time. Or three. A hundred is probably too many
though. But really there isn't any difference in the overall result.

> It's happened two years ago, but I still remembered that suggestions.
> Even later in my life I still download two or more at the same time.

Sure. I often have multiple things happening at the same time. It is
why I use a multitasking operating system.

> Here my question is that, is it true that open two wget will affect the
> downloading speed? better one by one, just suspect it.

Let's assume you have a 1.0 Mbit/s download connection. Because it
makes the math easier. And assume you need a 1.0 Mbyte file. With no
other overhead it will take aproximately 10 seconds to download.

Now let's assume that you download two of those files at the same
time. You still only have 1.0Mbit/s download speed. But now you are
downloading 2.0Mbytes of data in total. Obviously the total download
will take aproximately 20 seconds to download.

If you ran them sequentually then the first one would finish in 10
seconds and then the second one would start and it would finish 10
seconds later. So it would take 20 seconds in total for both to
download both of those files.

If you ran them both at the same time then neither would be able to
get the full 1.0Mbit/s download speed. It should balance out between
them and each would get about 0.5Mbit/s download speed. Which would
double the amount of time each would take. Each would take about 20
seconds to download those files but both are running at the same
time. So once again it would take 20 seconds in total for both to
download those files. No difference!

Now if you needed *one* of those files first then you would download
it first and not start any of the others until you had what you needed
first. You would prioritize. You would get the high priority items
first. Because then in 10 seconds you would have something you needed
first. You would hold off the lower priority items that could wait to
get the ones that you wanted soonest.

Hopefully all of that makes sense and enables you to do whatever makes
the most sense at that moment in time. If the bottleneck in speed is
your local network connection to the Internet then you would whatever
you wanted to make your task easiest.

Now here is a twist. This is a obtuse thing but useful to know about.
If the bottleneck is competition with other people then the situation
is different. Let's say you are working at a small business or school
or coffee shop along with nine other people for ten total people
downloading things. There is still a 1.0Mbit/s download capacity.
But now ten people are using it. So you are only getting 0.1Mbit/s
download speed. Getting that 1.0Mbyte file now takes 100 seconds
instead of 10 seconds. Because nine others, all ten of you in total,
are all downloading all at the same time and the system is sharing the
bandwidth across all of you. So now it takes 100 seconds.

Now here is the twist. If you can split that file up into nine parts
and then start nine downloads in parallel you will get the total
1Mbyte file downloaded in 50 seconds. That is now twice as fast as
the 100 second case! The system doesn't know about users. The system
knows about download connections. If you have nine downloads going at
once but your nine other coworkers each have one that is 18 total
downloads going at once. The system will share the bandwidth across
all 18 of those. But 9 of those are yours and 9 belong to the rest of
your coworkers. So you are getting half of the available bandwidth
and starving your coworkers out of their fair share.

Better if you split the file into 27 parts and ran 27 downloads in
parallel then you would have 27 and your coworkers would have 9 and
you would have 27/(27+9)=3/4 of the bandwidth and they would have
9/(27+9)=1/4 of the bandwidth. You would be able to download a
10Mbyte file in 13.3 seconds. The system divides bandwidth up between
the connections so if you have more connections then you get more
bandwidth. You could keep going with this but at some point the
overhead prevents further progress. This is what some file download
manager programs do. This is part of what makes bittorrent so
effective.

Meanwhile your coworkers might be a little bit upset that you were
starving them out. In response they might start doing the same thing
and running a parallel download manager. This becomes an "arms race"
with all sides trying to get more than their fair share at the expense
of others. Now if everyone in your group all did the same thing then
the result is that you would be right back where you started before,
with 1/10 of the bandwidth of the ten of you in the group.

I hope this was interesting and useful.

Bob
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:44 AM
lina
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

On Thursday 23,August,2012 03:34 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> lina wrote:
>> Once I used the wget to download one file from debian repository, on
>> another terminal I with to use the wget to get another file at the same
>> time from the same repository.
>
> And if you needed both files then that seems fine to me.
>
>> I was discouraged to do that, and was also told that, two wget
>> downloading would deduce the downloading speed, I should have waited one
>> finished before download another one.
>
> *Should* is too strong. It doesn't hurt anything to download two
> files at the same time. Or three. A hundred is probably too many
> though. But really there isn't any difference in the overall results
>
>> It's happened two years ago, but I still remembered that suggestions.
>> Even later in my life I still download two or more at the same time.
>
> Sure. I often have multiple things happening at the same time. It is
> why I use a multitasking operating system.
>
>> Here my question is that, is it true that open two wget will affect the
>> downloading speed? better one by one, just suspect it.
>
> Let's assume you have a 1.0 Mbit/s download connection. Because it
> makes the math easier. And assume you need a 1.0 Mbyte file. With no
> other overhead it will take aproximately 10 seconds to download.
>
> Now let's assume that you download two of those files at the same
> time. You still only have 1.0Mbit/s download speed. But now you are
> downloading 2.0Mbytes of data in total. Obviously the total download
> will take aproximately 20 seconds to download.
>
> If you ran them sequentually then the first one would finish in 10
> seconds and then the second one would start and it would finish 10
> seconds later. So it would take 20 seconds in total for both to
> download both of those files.
>
> If you ran them both at the same time then neither would be able to
> get the full 1.0Mbit/s download speed. It should balance out between
> them and each would get about 0.5Mbit/s download speed. Which would
> double the amount of time each would take. Each would take about 20
> seconds to download those files but both are running at the same
> time. So once again it would take 20 seconds in total for both to
> download those files. No difference!
>
> Now if you needed *one* of those files first then you would download
> it first and not start any of the others until you had what you needed
> first. You would prioritize. You would get the high priority items
> first. Because then in 10 seconds you would have something you needed
> first. You would hold off the lower priority items that could wait to
> get the ones that you wanted soonest.
>
> Hopefully all of that makes sense and enables you to do whatever makes
> the most sense at that moment in time. If the bottleneck in speed is
> your local network connection to the Internet then you would whatever
> you wanted to make your task easiest.
>
> Now here is a twist. This is a obtuse thing but useful to know about.
> If the bottleneck is competition with other people then the situation
> is different. Let's say you are working at a small business or school
> or coffee shop along with nine other people for ten total people
> downloading things. There is still a 1.0Mbit/s download capacity.
> But now ten people are using it. So you are only getting 0.1Mbit/s
> download speed. Getting that 1.0Mbyte file now takes 100 seconds
> instead of 10 seconds. Because nine others, all ten of you in total,
> are all downloading all at the same time and the system is sharing the
> bandwidth across all of you. So now it takes 100 seconds.
>
> Now here is the twist. If you can split that file up into nine parts
> and then start nine downloads in parallel you will get the total
> 1Mbyte file downloaded in 50 seconds. That is now twice as fast as
> the 100 second case! The system doesn't know about users. The system
> knows about download connections. If you have nine downloads going at
> once but your nine other coworkers each have one that is 18 total
> downloads going at once. The system will share the bandwidth across
> all 18 of those. But 9 of those are yours and 9 belong to the rest of
> your coworkers. So you are getting half of the available bandwidth
> and starving your coworkers out of their fair share.
>
> Better if you split the file into 27 parts and ran 27 downloads in
> parallel then you would have 27 and your coworkers would have 9 and
> you would have 27/(27+9)=3/4 of the bandwidth and they would have
> 9/(27+9)=1/4 of the bandwidth. You would be able to download a
> 10Mbyte file in 13.3 seconds. The system divides bandwidth up between
> the connections so if you have more connections then you get more
> bandwidth. You could keep going with this but at some point the
> overhead prevents further progress. This is what some file download
> manager programs do. This is part of what makes bittorrent so
> effective.
>
> Meanwhile your coworkers might be a little bit upset that you were
> starving them out. In response they might start doing the same thing
> and running a parallel download manager. This becomes an "arms race"
> with all sides trying to get more than their fair share at the expense
> of others. Now if everyone in your group all did the same thing then
> the result is that you would be right back where you started before,
> with 1/10 of the bandwidth of the ten of you in the group.
>
> I hope this was interesting and useful.

Indeed, very interesting explaination, and now I start to understand why
some "download manager" software are banned here.

Thanks Bob for your time.

Best regards,

>
> Bob


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5035DF79.7080804@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/5035DF79.7080804@gmail.com
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:33 AM
Bonno Bloksma
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

Hi,

>>> Here my question is that, is it true that open two wget will affect
>>> the downloading speed? better one by one, just suspect it.
>>
>> Let's assume you have a 1.0 Mbit/s download connection. Because it
>> makes the math easier. And assume you need a 1.0 Mbyte file. With no
>> other overhead it will take aproximately 10 seconds to download.
>>
>> Now let's assume that you download two of those files at the same
>> time. You still only have 1.0Mbit/s download speed. But now you are
>> downloading 2.0Mbytes of data in total. Obviously the total download
>> will take aproximately 20 seconds to download.
>>
>> If you ran them sequentually then the first one would finish in 10
>> seconds and then the second one would start and it would finish 10
>> seconds later. So it would take 20 seconds in total for both to
>> download both of those files.
>>
>> If you ran them both at the same time then neither would be able to
>> get the full 1.0Mbit/s download speed. It should balance out between
>> them and each would get about 0.5Mbit/s download speed. Which would
>> double the amount of time each would take. Each would take about 20
>> seconds to download those files but both are running at the same time.
>> So once again it would take 20 seconds in total for both to download
>> those files. No difference!

One other thing to keep in mind. Usualy when downloading a file with a "chatty protocol", one that needs to confirm downloading a block to the server before the next block is sent, the actual filetransfer wil not fill the full bandwith, in those cases a second download will fill up that available bandwith. I see that a lot when I transfer files via my VPN connection from my Windows PC from/to the Windows server.
With a WAN optimized file protocol that is filling the available bandwith starting a second download at the same time will not help.

Bonno Bloksma


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 89D1798A7351D040B4E74E0A043C69D70F006DFF@HGLEXCH-01.tio.nl">http://lists.debian.org/89D1798A7351D040B4E74E0A043C69D70F006DFF@HGLEXCH-01.tio.nl
 
Old 08-23-2012, 09:09 AM
Martin Steigerwald
 
Default Logging ISP Download Speed.

Am Mittwoch, 22. August 2012 schrieb Weaver:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:39:46 -0700, Weaver wrote:
> >>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:37:43 -0700, Weaver wrote:
> >>>>> I regularly log 40-47Kb/s on updates.. Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> And so do we all...
> >
> > Rick, careful when quoting...
> >
> >> Yes, I understand this, Rick, but even with Cameleon's suggestion of
> >> downloading a larger file from Oracle's servers, at a quiet time of
> >> night, a 64 MB download (Mysql's community edition, X86_64) still
> >> takes one minute and seven seconds.
> >
> > Weaver, you don't have to center your attention on the time it takes
> > but the download speed (KiB/MiB per second). As I said, using Oracle
> > servers I can get up to 10 MiB/s which is the best number I have
> > ever got.
> >
> >> I understand also, that many can't get these speeds, but when you
> >> are paying for 100MB/s and not even getting ADSL1 speeds, the ethic
> >> bothers me.
> >
> > That's a common feeling from users with high speed links, but there
> > is not much we can do, simply put: todays Internet is not prepared
> > for providing that speeds but in counted sites/hosts :-(
> >
> > Anyway, remember that you are paying for 100 Mbps that is around 12
> > MiB/s.
>
> If you are referring to the download I mention, it's not even 1 MB/s.
>
> >> I've worked for myself, predominantly, since the age of 17 and no
> >> client would ever be able to say that they got short-changed by me.
> >> It's unethical business, pure and simple. This goes against the
> >> grain.
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > Can you please provide the results of this speed test?
> >
> > http://www.speedtest.net/
> >
> > I get:
> >
> > Ping: 3 ms
> > Download: 86.09 Mbps
> > Upload: 9.96 Mbps
>
> I get:
>
> Ping: 69 ms
> Download: 27.71 Mb/s
> Upload: 2.28 Mb/s

For comparision DSL 18000 + 1 MBit Upload speed:

M-Net in Germany, Nuremberg

Ping: 28 ms
Download: 12,32 Mbps
Upload: 1,06 Mbps

Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201208231109.50960.Martin@lichtvoll.de">http://lists.debian.org/201208231109.50960.Martin@lichtvoll.de
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org