AutoPatcher Forum

I noticed Autopatcher downloads files one by one, even if one file is hosted on microsoft.com and another is hosted on adobe.com.

I think it's useful to start to download another file, if it's not hosted on the same domain of the current download.

In details, Autopatcher could create N queue lists, one for domain. Every list contains all file URLs that are hosted on the same domain. So N files are downloaded at one time (or less, if one queue has no more files to download).

I think we should say if we would like to download more then one file at a time. e.g. there is a tick box to say that.

If used properly, APUP downloads less than 10 files per year from Adobe. So this would create much greater complexity with very little gain.

As I have posted elsewhere, APUP is an updater, not a download manager. Only part of APUP's task is to download.

--

APUP is an updater, agreed, but more and more people see it as package manager to keep their OS up to date.. Like for debian and lots of other linux flavours you got package managers like apt/dpkg available. Where you can define multiple mirrors and the manager will download from multiple sources at once to reduce download times.

Even for downloads from microsoft itself it might make sense for the reason that this site has multiple mirrors:

$ host download.microsoft.com
download.microsoft.com CNAME download.microsoft.com.nsatc.net
download.microsoft.com.nsatc.net CNAME mscom-dlc.vo.llnwd.net
mscom-dlc.vo.llnwd.net A 87.248.201.179
mscom-dlc.vo.llnwd.net A 87.248.201.166

each server is capped at around 120kb/s, thus spreading the downloadthreads to those would mean an increase of 100% in download speed, so if you are on your first run for example, this would mean that everything is downloaded in half the time.

a lot of things are being done for apup, my friend. including an full replacement for the downloader engine. with that fixed, a lot of things that we are unable to do right now will be possible. please, wait and see what comes next

[]s

 OUTsider, on 28 October 2009 - 04:32 PM, said:

No, that's complete rubbish, because it's factually incorrect. The servers are NOT capped. Nor are the content provider "pipes" that you are seeing when you resolve those addresses, at least not in any meaningful way that you could ever measure with a single computer.

I can get up to 100Mb/s at work with a direct connection, once everyone else has gone home. On a home computer it is easily possible to max out an ADSL2/ADSL2+ connection with a single download thread. That's over 8Mb/s for ADSL2 alone -- more than 60x faster than you say it is, just on a home connection.

Secondly, opening multiple connections actually SLOWS down the downloads. Keeping a single connection alive cuts out all that connect/close handshaking overhead and is MUCH faster for small downloads. Making use of "keep-alive" on a single download thread is the key to increasing sustained download speeds. The ONLY time multiple connections work, is if you are downloading from crappy torrent servers. Microsft don't use crappy torrent servers.

Bandwidth is throttled by your ISP and indirectly by all those other pesky users who seem to want to use the Internet at the same time. The other end of the connection is at least 1000x faster.

==