Downloaded 647,1 megabytes in 1:11 seconds. (9281,85 KB/s)
[#1 SIZE:610.5MiB/647.0MiB(94%) CN:5 SPD:8420.79KiB/s ETA:04s]
hmmmm.... try 3 times axel and 3 times aria2c
speed is better with axel.... hmmm.... why ?
I did the same thing.
From my country, the transfer ratio is around 3000KiB/s in both axel and aria2 and the result is:
Downloaded 647.1 megabytes in 3:37 seconds. (3044.51 KB/s)
gid|stat|avg speed |path/URI
1| OK| 3.0MiB/s|/mnt/image.iso
That's comparable. I observed transfer rate is getting higher in aria2 sometimes.
Did you compare the actual time of downloading?
The printed speed may be deceiving sometimes..
what is the bash command to
have this ?
It doesn't affect download performance, but it will after that. Copying/playing those fragmented files takes a lot of time than preallocated files.
That said, I admit that the fragmentation in HTTP/FTP is less obvious than BItTorrent because it can use bigger piece size than that of BitTorrent.
Turning on preallocation is a safety-measure. If you don't need it, you can disable it by writing file-allocation=false in your aria2.conf file. Also if you use ext4(with extents), then you can use --file-allocation=falloc(added in 1.3.0), which can instantly allocations big files.
> Also if you use ext4(with extents), then you can use --file-allocation=falloc(added in 1.3.0), which can instantly allocations big files.
I can't wait to try this out! newer distributions coming out have the option to use ext4.
idea is do not purpose filealloc by default if BT is not used no ?
That's good idea for linux :)
But for FAT file systems(win32), because it doesn't support sparse files, there are will be long pause when segmented downloading is done without file allocation. I think file allocation is necessary for FAT file system.
time aria2c http://test-debit.free.fr/image.iso
(i only spoken of aria2 in this comment) filealloc does nothing compared without filalloc...
maybe it can help for BT transferts
and/or slowdown computers ???
1mn06 for axel, 1mn11 aria2c without prealloc...
it will be interesting to know why axel is better...
fileallocation avoids fragmentation. I think it is not slow down download a lot.
The difference is only 5 seconds. It can be ignored. If server has descent bandwidth, then both client performs well.
I think aria2 is more complex than axel, there might be overhead before/after download.
25 seconds to create 650 Mo empty file without any advantage :-(
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.