Re: Bug#690183: ITP: apt-fast -- shellscript wrapper for apt-get or aptitude
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Andrei POPESCU
> On Jo, 11 oct 12, 18:22:50, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 09:59:35AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
>> > Of course, being able to download stuff from two different servers at the same
>> > time had a better end result, and as long as is one download at a time per
>> > server, I think it can be considered socially acceptable.
>> Yes, which is why there's
>> Acquire::Queue-Mode "host";
>> see apt.conf(5) for the full details on this one. You don't need shell
>> scripts and things like axel to get this.
> Sorry, but I don't understand how this is supposed to increase my
> download speed.
It works just like in the other mails you get which promise an "increase":
You have to believe that it works - and it eventually will. ¹
If you don't fall for such placebo effects you are unfortunately out of luck
as "host" is the default, but you can use a service like http.debian.net
(which only works so well because "host" is the default …) to get a
real benefit - assuming that you really have more bandwidth available than
one mirror is able to provide you without being unfair/"anti-social"
to all the other users using the same mirror, which is how apt-fast works.
If you wonder why APT is getting all packages from one source (the first one
mentioned in the sources.list) even if it could choose between two or more
sources in your sources.list: It is assumed your sources.list is ordered from
most to least desired source: e.g. CD-ROM, local mirror, "internet" mirror.
Getting a package from the internet if it could be acquired through CD-ROM
would be a waste of resources (be it time, money, traffic, $yourmetric or a
wild mixture of all of them). Same for "local" vs. "internet" mirror.
So the mentioned setting effects situations in which package A and B are
available from different sources - these are acquired in parallel if possible.
¹ note that Wouter hasn't promised that. It was just pointed out that the
desired behavior is actually already implemented (and I am just making it
clear that this is the default value).