James Carlson wrote: > Si-wei Louis Liu writes: > >> I don't think puf is totally functioning equal to aget. ;-) >> > > I wasn't necessarily suggesting they were; just surprised to see the > somewhat obscure aget proposed with no mention of 'puf.' > okay, that's fine. > >> puf, just as its name, fetches bunch of URLs in parallel, more like >> another wget with parallelism. However, it cannot simply download a >> large file (i.e. a kernel archive like, an .iso image, etc.) in >> parallel, esp. over a not so fast network. Aget can fill this gap by >> dividing the large file downloaded into multiple parts, each of which is >> handled by a pthread, and facilitates the falling over from download >> failures. >> > > OK ... though there are likely a few controversial issues buried in > there. > did you mean potential impact of over-stressing the network or servers? I'd like to hear your concerns and comments here. If so, we could apply a patch against aget to limit the connections/pthread to a safe value. Or any other similiar mechanism to minimize the side effect. > >> Moreover, aget is based on BSD(-like) license, and its been ported to >> OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and Linux, etc. long before. This is another >> reason for selecting aget as multi-threaded HTTP file downloader on Solaris. >> > > I don't think the license really matters, at least in this review. > But OSR review was biting me ever... sometimes it's easy to seek a pretty nice software to port, but legals might tell you there are often trademark issues or security concerns, *potentially*. Anyway, apparently I was not that dog in its day. :-( > The unfortunate thing here is the apparent long-standing disagreement > between the aget and wget folks on multiple streams, leading to > duplicate tools. *sigh* > Better late than never. :-) PS, any chance for peer to peer software to integrate into Solaris at present? I ask this just for my own interest. I think Transmission is the one for bittorrent network for the time being. How's the strategy of Solaris over the multiple stream software for now?
> In any event, +1. > > Thanks for your review, James. Regards, -Louis
