SamF: I guess the point that SideFX is making is that he can't be sure that this is pure international bandwidth from his particular test source.
1 megabyte/sec is reasonable on a high speed connection for uncached international content.
Sure I'd love to get consistent line rate everywhere, no packet loss, no delays, etc etc, but it's reasonably comparable to what a lot of other people around the world experience.
If the caching actually caches stuff that you want to download, and you get fast speeds then surely it's a good thing, and it's working as intended.
SamF: Right, well, to be honest, I've never seen ANY download from ANYWHERE get even close to 30mbit on a single thread.
I just tested a popular locally Akamai cached file from Microsoft just now; 500kbytes/sec max. Overall speed also depends on how much speed the remote server is allowing per connection too.
TBH, I'm not quite sure what everyone's concern is about single threaded downloads.
SamF: Lol, why do you say multithreading is bad?
I've heard the argument that using multiple threads is 'selfish' because you use more bandwidth than other users, but I don't buy that. If I use 10 threads instead of 1, sure I use 10x more bandwidth than others, BUT I'm finished 10x faster than everyone else, so the net bandwidth usage over time is exactly the same!
Yeah, that 100mb test file came down at 3.5MB/sec so not bad. Obviously that server has less (or no) restriction on per connection speeds.
SamF: For sure, obviously less threads is better than more, but I'm not so sure that there's that much more overhead. My multithreaded transfers tend to run very smoothly. I have done quite a bit of work to get them like that of course, but it is possible to do efficiently.
SamF: Naa, I'm testing from a Usenet server.