SanNZBD vs Unison

[monkey]

Hi,

I've got SabNZBD running on an ubuntu server (11.10) box with 2gb RAM, 1gb NIC on a 30 Mbps line.
Using Unison on an old iMac (Running OSX 10.5.8 with 1.25Gb RAM 100Mpbs NIC), my line's maxed out. Other computers on the network are severely limited slow with browsing whilst Unison is downloaded.

So, on a higher spec machine, why does SabNZBD not do the same? I get a max of 4.4Mbps download (with giganews or supernews)
I'm not complaining, that's still pretty damn fast but other users internet connection is not slowed down.

Is there a way of speeding up sabnzbd as it seems to hit a cap that Unison does not.

I can then get it to only download at certain hours (eg overnight)

Thoughts and suggestions welcome!
Iain

[shypike]

Most other apps are written in C++, SABnzbd in Python, which is slower.
Enable the article cache in Config->General.
I can get a simple Atom-based netbook running Ubuntu server 10.04 to
download at about 8 MByte/sec.

[monkey]

Ah, kewl, a setting I was missing. I'll give that a whirl!
Even if that doesn't make a great deal of difference, the fact that I now know Python is slower satisfies my demand for speed! SabNZBD offers me the simplicity I needed and I can live with that

[jcfp]

30 Mbit/s = 3.75 MByte/s. Sabnzbd indicates speeds in bytes not bits, so 3.75 MB/s is all you'll get with a 30 Mbit connection. Even on very slow hardware you should be able to get that maxed out. Look at the time it takes to completes a download of a certain size, it's a more reliable indicator not subject to marketing ploys.

[monkey]

I appreciate the difference between the two, but I don't think that is the answer as Unison makes the web virtually unusable on the network where as Sabnzb lets other users happily surf away!

[monkey]

Sorry, but your comments about Megabits VS Megabytes don't hold water unless there is a fundamental flaw with SabNZBD.

4.4MB p/s I can appreciate being 44 MEG per second.
However, a DVD download (4.9 GB) at 44 MEG per second should download in 93 seconds. Not 19 minutes.
OK, 19 minutes is still very fast, but it still shows that there is a vast difference.
Is the download speed in bytes and the file size in bits?

A huge inconsistency here if this is the case and very misleading for the average user. The conversion could easily be accomodated for behind the scenes and would make your theory hold water.

[jcfp]

I appreciate the difference between the two

Apparently not.

a DVD download (4.9 GB) [...]19 minutes.

Finally, some real numbers, albeit with some incorrect calculations attached. Short version: 4.9 GBytes in 19 minutes is perfectly fine for a 30 mbit line.