https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474135
--- Comment #19 from [email protected] --- > I have other people who need to use the network. For me, that's very > important. I don't care if I use all of my CPU (which I definitely shan't > when doing an update anyway). You previously commented; >couldn't parallel downloads increase performance, though? Insofar as enough >bandwidth is available, it means that the packages are >downloaded faster, so >that the network can return to a less-saturated state quicker. This is true, for *as long as* the network does not drop out when the package download begins. And in Ellie's case, that is exactly what happens. Parallel downloads multiply the number of TCP sockets used, that is how they achieve additional throughput. But if the network can't handle it, you run into problems. Why is it a problem for you if parallel downloads are swapped for sequential? You made the argument that there are other people using your network, so you need parallel updates to get the update out of the way quicker so the network can return to a stable state. Sequential downloads taking 10 minutes would not clog the network half as much as parallel downloads taking 3 minutes. In Ellie's case, Discover does not work. That is a problem. Ellie has confirmed that 'flatpak update' works fine because it is sequential. She's also confirmed that downloading multiple items at once in firefox also causes this. In your case, Discover works. If swapping to sequential updates fixes this issue for Ellie entirely, but ever so slightly inconveniences you, then I'm not necessarily convinced that the pros of parallel downloads outweigh the cons. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
