Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Truncated tarball from git.savannah.gnu.org

> "BP" == Bob Proulx writes: BP> Using gzip is much less stressful on the cpu. It only takes 1m30s to BP> create and download a tar.gz file. The gz is a larger file than the BP> xz but the overall impact of the gz is less. Yes. It is possible something like varnish in

Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Truncated tarball from git.savannah.gnu.org

Eli Zaretskii wrote: > James Cloos wrote: > > It looks like there is a 60 second limit. Yes. There appeared to be a 60 second limit. > > And the transmission is unnaturally slow. My test averaged only 154KB/s > > even though I ran it on a machine in a very well connected data center > > near

Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Truncated tarball from git.savannah.gnu.org

JC>> It looks like there is a 60 second limit. EZ> I think the tarball is produced on the fly, so it isn't the bandwidth EZ> that limits the speed, it's the CPU processing resources needed to EZ> xz-compress the files. Try the same with .tar.gz, and you will see EZ> quite a different speed.

[Savannah-hackers-public] Truncated tarball from git.savannah.gnu.org

If I try this command: wget http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/snapshot/emacs-master.tar.xz I get only about 11MB worth of data, less than half of what I expect. Sounds like some limitation, either by download time or by something else, kicks in?