Also sprach Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:57:39 -0500 (EST)): > At 1137150799s since epoch (01/13/06 00:13:19 -0500 UTC), Richard > Mittendorfer wrote: > > Also sprach Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, 12 Jan 2006 > > 22:37:58 -0500 (EST)): > > > What are you using for your speed tests? I'm using wget, so I > > > know there's no browser cache issue. > > > > Originally I do a apt-get (it prints the downloadspeed), certainly > > wget gives me same results. > > > > 100Mb/s FD switched Ethernet too. With quite good performance > > NFS(~9.5MB/s) or FTP. > > Running out of ideas here...
Anyway, thx for looking into this. I'm wondering about this quite a long time and I'm clueless too. OTOH it isn't something really dramatic. > Have you verified in your cache logs (access.log) that the files > you're downloading are cache HITs? Most of the Debian mirrors I've > used don't do much better than ~250KB/s if they're busy. If for some > reason you weren't loading a cached version, you might just be seeing > the max download speed from the mirror. Jepp, they are TCP_HIT. > Jason sl ritch
