I attempted to post the undermentioned in response to id=474135#c17:
(In reply to john.liptrot from comment #17) > > For devices on decently slow, but not massively slow, networks, couldn't > > parallel downloads increase performance, though? > > More is not necessarily better. More parallel connections = more TCP > handshakes, more DNS lookups, more packets through the network, every lost > packet must be retransmitted etc. Lost packets are infinitely worse on > wireless compared to wired connections. One sequential stream is easier for > every single link in the chain, and there's always a bottleneck, be it CPU > speed, LAN throughput, hard drive IOPS, internet connection speed etc. Then the difference here is that I've a good CPU connected via Category 7 RJ-45 802.3 (so a fast LAN), but my gateway and broadband aren't quick. See https://www.speedtest.net/result/18012165677. > Is it that much of an issue though? I would prefer to have an update take a > little bit longer without breaking things than try to run as fast as > possible and possibly max out my CPU, bog down the WI-FI etc. I have other people who need to use the network. For me, that's very important. I don't care if I use all of my CPU (which I definitely shan't when doing an update anyway).
However, I saw:
Your comment has been automatically blocked as it is believed to contain spam. Please contact Sysadmin if you believe this to be incorrect.
I’m uncertain how to report this to bugs.kde.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=bugs.kde.org without it being flagged. Is #kde-sysadmin:kde.org a better avenue? I don’t really have the time for synchronous communications.