https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474135
--- Comment #18 from Roke Julian Lockhart Beedell <[email protected]> --- I can't post my *full* response here, so you'll need to see https://discuss.kde.org/t/i-am-unable-to-post-a-comment-at-kde-bz/40509?u=rokejulianlockhart. Apologies; it's out of my control. What I can post is: (In reply to john.liptrot from comment #17) > > For devices on decently slow, but not massively slow, networks, couldn't > > parallel downloads increase performance, though? > > More is not necessarily better. More parallel connections = more TCP > handshakes, more DNS lookups, more packets through the network, every lost > packet must be retransmitted etc. Lost packets are infinitely worse on > wireless compared to wired connections. One sequential stream is easier for > every single link in the chain, and there's always a bottleneck, be it CPU > speed, LAN throughput, hard drive IOPS, internet connection speed etc. Then the difference here is that I've a good CPU connected via Category 7 RJ-45 802.3 (so a fast LAN), but my gateway and broadband aren't quick. > Is it that much of an issue though? I would prefer to have an update take a > little bit longer without breaking things than try to run as fast as > possible and possibly max out my CPU, bog down the WI-FI etc. 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 are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
