2018-08-02 21:33 GMT+02:00 Gisle Vanem :
> Testing with the same
> file via ftp to my server in Denmark (11 hops) shows a
> bit worse result:
> running vanilla...
> start:0,406000 total:1,219000
> running patched...
> start:0,359000 total:1,531000
>
> Seems ftp is maxing my line here.
2018-08-03 4:07 GMT+02:00 Jan Ehrhardt :
>>I also have a Windows 8.1 64-bits running in a Virtualbox on the Wondows
>>2008 R2 server. No speed improvement. Most of the times the patched
>>version is a little bit faster, but sometimes even slower. Typical
>>result below.
>>
> The same happens with
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Thomas Glanzmann wrote:
Have you tried to do something like Daniel's upload "auto-tuning" patch but
for the download buffers [*]? Or maybe that's not as easily done for
downloads...
[*] = https://github.com/curl/curl/pull/2762
No, I have not. I just tried to calculate
Hello Daniel,
> > If you like to run me some more experiements, I can do that. I just
> > compile curl with a higher SO_SNDBUF / SO_RCVBUF, fire up a ec2 AWS
> > instance with windows server 2016 somewhere in the world with a big pipe
> > and high latency and download something from my well
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Ray Satiro wrote:
2. Windows Vista SP2, USA, NYC:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
generating test file...
running vanilla...
start:0.484000 total:15.234000
running patched...
start:0.453000 total:2.234000
Yikes!
At 28 reported numbers, this is the largest improvement
On 8/2/2018 8:52 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> Please note that we would *love* your assistance here if you're a
> Windows user and can offer a few moments of your time to run a few
> tests on a few Windows versions and tell us the outcome! Here's a
> simple way to help us make curl better without
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Thomas Glanzmann wrote:
If you like to run me some more experiements, I can do that. I just compile
curl with a higher SO_SNDBUF / SO_RCVBUF, fire up a ec2 AWS instance with
windows server 2016 somewhere in the world with a big pipe and high latency
and download something
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
With 14 results so far the patch keeps proving itself a good idea:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xAntVPAggz9gvx7TI_vUF6G6titRAX5tBOZv0JCXkNY/edit?usp=sharing
At 21 results, the numbers don't move much.
The patched version needs on average
From Cambridge, UK
Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.15063]
generating test file...
running vanilla...
start:0.64 total:4.578000
running patched...
start:0.469000 total:1.907000
--
Richard
-Original Message-
From: curl-library On Behalf Of Daniel
Stenberg
Sent: Friday, August 3,
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Samuel Hurst wrote:
For example, being able to build new
URLs from relative ones. I can't quite tell from the examples provided
whether curl_url would do relative transformation if the urlhandle is already
valid. I can see a use case where I'd want to do the following:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Gisle Vanem wrote:
But that server is 19 hops away. Testing with the same
file via ftp to my server in Denmark (11 hops) shows a
bit worse result:
running vanilla...
start:0,406000 total:1,219000
running patched...
start:0,359000 total:1,531000
It would probably be
On 01/08/18 23:17, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
Hi,
In the 2018 user survey, more than 40% of the 395 users who answered the
question said they'd use a "URL handling" API in libcurl if one existed.
I gave it some thoughts the other day and I've now jotted down my
initial suggestion on how it
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
We want to have more user's experience and results from tests to determine
how we should make curl make uploads on windows as fast as possible.
I've added all the results received so far into a google docs sheet avialble
for viewing on the link
Hello Daniel,
I fired up a Windows 2016 instance in Canada using AWS. First thing I
got was an error message MSVCR100.dll is missing. So I installed the
visual c++ runtime. And tried again.
Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.14393]
generating test file...
running vanilla...
start:0.469000
Hello,
I recently had a customer complaining that the download speed from
Canada to Paris is bad. He got 150 Mbit/s and had a 1 Gbit line with a
single connection. Both systems were Windows Server 2016. Proprietary
Application. This was for 80ms latency link. After some testing I found out
that
>>Jan Ehrhardt's XP test was really slow and if we exclude that from the
>>results, the average patched result goes down to 46%.
Perhaps completely irrelevant and probably already taken into account: Windows
(any network performance) may severely suffer from a virus scanner,
or if no AV or
16 matches
Mail list logo
