On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > Hi, > > This is what we got from the poll on users list when it comes to the > download speeds. > Unfortunately the results do not include regions which I was mostly > interested in > and where I saw complaints about the speed. >
What regions were those (I'm mostly curious)? US(NM) was one I know of, validated through the result provided. > US(CA); 1.88MB/s; academic network; M: UCSD(89.4MB/s), PL(6.83M/s), > SA(8.85M/s), GR (6.36M/s) > US(OR); 808KB/s; local ISP; M: UCSD(2MB/s) > US(FL); 1.33MB/s; residential LAN; > US(TX); 20-100KB/s; hotel wifi; M: UCSD(2.89MB/s), > SA(1.42MB/s)(!), GR(163KB/s) > US(MI); 1.14MB/s; residential cable; M: UCSD(11.6MB/s) > US(NM); 7.23MB/s; business network; M: UCSD(23.8MB/s) > US(NM): 90 KB/s; residential ISP; M: UCSD(9.5MB/s) > Ca(Qe): 242 KB/s; academic network; M: UCSD(393 KB/s) > NZ(Du); 800 kB/s; fibre network; M: UCSD(1.4 MB/s), PL(650 kB/s), > SA(540 kB/s), GR(780 kB/s) > Tr; 2-3MB/s; Turknet, local ISP; > EU(Cz); 44.6MB/s; academic network; M: UCSD(16.3MB/s), PL(25.5MB/s), > SA(14.3MB/s), GR(12.0MB/s) > EU(Pt); 40.8MB/s; academic network; > EU(Pt); 4.26MB/s; local ISP; > EU(De); 414KB/s; local ISP; > EU(De); 495KB/s; Home-WLAN; M: UCSD(2,86 MB/s) > Eu(De); 929 KB/s; Office LAN; M: UCSD((6,40 MB/s)) > > > I'd say we don't have serious problems in EU/US, but I came up with > neat solution for ppl suffering with connectivity problems - we could > publish torrents for two large files we currently distribute: win bundle > install & mac .dmg. Other are small enough to make it even on small > ftp speeds. > Before proceeding with this, have users been asked if a torrent is appropriate for their needs? Of the individual responses provided, the slowest of any particular region I see is 414 kb/s (it would be interesting to see that persons UCSD speed, which generally seems higher even for EU downloaders than the default site). Or, perhaps I misunderstand and by connectivity problems you mean stability of connection rather than speed (such that a torrent is the best answer)? Regardless, I ask about torrents (assuming speed is the main concern) because, selfishly I (a) don't have a torrent client at home and wouldn't be inclined to install one knowing that a better mirror option than the default exists for me and (b) I absolutely could not make use of one at my work place even if I wanted to. What I'm attempting to get at is: do we need another download mechanism or do we need to refine/emphasize the message to downloaders that alternatives exist and they may in in fact be faster than the default? Along those lines, rather than spinning up a torrent, has anyone investigated what it would take to get an auto-negotiating mirror setup such that when someone downloads from the default site they are automagically redirected to the fastest available mirror? I'm not trying to shoot down the idea of the torrent, but am rather asking if creating multiple download paths rather than improving the knowledge/use of the existing ones will benefit users more. Again, my focus is on speed (because that is what the poll driving the conversation focused on), but if the goal is download connection robustness, I cede that torrenting makes sense. Thanks, Joel
