Also sprach Jason Healy <jhealy+squid@logn.net> (Fri, 13 Jan 2006
08:57:39 -0500 (EST)):
> At 1137150799s since epoch (01/13/06 00:13:19 -0500 UTC), Richard
> Mittendorfer wrote:
> > Also sprach Jason Healy <jhealy+squid@logn.net> (Thu, 12 Jan 2006
> > 22:37:58 -0500 (EST)):
> > > What are you using for your speed tests? I'm using wget, so I
> > > know there's no browser cache issue.
> >
> > Originally I do a apt-get (it prints the downloadspeed), certainly
> > wget gives me same results.
> >
> > 100Mb/s FD switched Ethernet too. With quite good performance
> > NFS(~9.5MB/s) or FTP.
>
> Running out of ideas here...
Anyway, thx for looking into this. I'm wondering about this quite a long
time and I'm clueless too. OTOH it isn't something really dramatic.
> Have you verified in your cache logs (access.log) that the files
> you're downloading are cache HITs? Most of the Debian mirrors I've
> used don't do much better than ~250KB/s if they're busy. If for some
> reason you weren't loading a cached version, you might just be seeing
> the max download speed from the mirror.
Jepp, they are TCP_HIT.
> Jason
sl ritch
Received on Fri Jan 13 2006 - 08:13:16 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 12:00:01 MST