[Yum] [UG] parallelizing downloading

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:22:11PM -0400, Robert G. Brown wrote:
> And in the end, you will USUALLY save at most a relatively few seconds,
> at the risk of actually taking longer.  Serialized connections/downloads
> are so much simpler and performance limitations are easy to understand
> and work around.

To begin, I want to say that I largely agree with the conclusion,
although I may disagree on some fine points.

THE DOWNSIDE:

I think that, implemented well, parallel downloading would VERY VERY
RARELY (I just removed "NEVER" because I'm me, but the fact that I
typed in the first place should tell you something) significantly slow
things down.  Sure, there are extra cycles being spent, but usually
when downloading, the network is the real bottleneck and not the
processor/client code.

I think the REAL downside is (a) that it's really not simple code to
write given all of the other stuff urlgrabber does and does well.  All
the people in the world can tell me "it shouldn't be too hard", but
(like most interesting problems) the devil is in the details, and
trust me, there are plenty of details to go around.  

This complexity doesn't just mean PITA for the programmer (me), but it
would also adversely affect the user by increasing the complexity of
the program, adding bugs, and making those bugs harder to find.  As
Seth correctly recalled, reporting on parallel downloads is harder,
and that means diagnosis is harder.

THE UPSIDE

I think the most common annoyance for people, and the event that
drives most of them to say "hey, this should be parallelized" is when
they have 50 packages queued for download and EVERYTHING halts for a
single slow server.  Now, in practice the difference between "low
bandwidth server" and "high latency server" is pretty minor, but
there's a big psychological difference.

MY INTEREST

Mostly, I'm interested in this problem for intellectual reasons.  It's
hard.  That would be my primary drive.  Also, it would "fill out"
urlgrabber nicely.  I agree that there would not be much benefit for
most yum users.

					-Michael
-- 
  Michael D. Stenner                            mstenner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  ECE Department, the University of Arizona                 520-626-1619
  1230 E. Speedway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721-0104                 ECE 524G

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux