From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Parallel downloads
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:36:40 +0100
Message-ID: <87r22dp0mv.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87pnid3qdh.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k18kyjlm.fsf@nckx>
 <87wock97ye.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k18h3tii.fsf@gnu.org>
 <87muddm110.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87eeyl10jq.fsf@gnu.org>
 <875zjxq978.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87h83d7xsn.fsf@gnu.org>
 <87eeyfn9n7.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46341)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1iUYDm-0001cM-Mb
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:36:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87eeyfn9n7.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> (Pierre Neidhardt's message of
 "Sun, 10 Nov 2019 14:28:12 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
 <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Hello,

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> it=E2=80=99s not supposed to be
>> faster to download 10 things in parallel from ci.guix.gnu.org, than to
>> download them sequentially.
>
> I was thinking a little bit ahead in the future, e.g. when we have more
> build farms (if it ever happens), or with Torrent / IPFS support.  Then
> I believe it would be highly beneficial: a sufficiently fast  connection
> could effectively parallelize enough downloads to fill the bandwidth.

I think we=E2=80=99ll have to revisit this issue at that point; it=E2=80=99=
s hard to
discuss things in the abstract.  :-)

> Also what about the CDNs?  Is it currently possible to download from
> multiple CDNs at the same time?

We=E2=80=99d have to ask Chris Marusich about that, but I think CDNs should
typically use all the available bandwidth so I suspect there=E2=80=99s litt=
le to
be gained by having several connections in parallel.

Ludo=E2=80=99.