[rfc-i] [xml2rfc] Missing reference.RFC.5735 (?)

[Julian Reschke]

On 18.02.2010 16:26, Glen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:30:23AM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> On 2010-2-18, at 11:18, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> I had to switch my scripts as well, and I now observe what seems to be
>>> bandwidth problem; downloading the RFC index from
>>> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes happens at a few kilobytes per second,
>>> and frequently aborts before finished.
>> I see the same:
>> [eggert at fit: ~] wget ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xml
>> --2010-02-18 11:28:07--  ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xml
>>             =>  `rfc-index.xml'
>> Resolving ftp.rfc-editor.org... 64.170.98.47
>> Connecting to ftp.rfc-editor.org|64.170.98.47|:21... connected.
>> Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
>> ==>  SYST ... done.    ==>  PWD ... done.
>> ==>  TYPE I ... done.  ==>  CWD /in-notes ... done.
>> ==>  SIZE rfc-index.xml ... 7499836
>> ==>  PASV ... done.    ==>  RETR rfc-index.xml ... done.
>> Length: 7499836 (7.2M)
>>   3% [>                                       ] 241,816     8.81K/s  eta 17m 27s
>
> All -
>
> Good day.
>
> With respect to speed, I am not experiencing that:
>
> glen at europa:~/tmp>  time wget ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xml
> --2010-02-18 07:15:06--  ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xml
>             =>  `rfc-index.xml'
> Resolving ftp.rfc-editor.org... 64.170.98.47
> Connecting to ftp.rfc-editor.org|64.170.98.47|:21... connected.
> Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
> ==>  SYST ... done.    ==>  PWD ... done.
> ==>  TYPE I ... done.  ==>  CWD /in-notes ... done.
> ==>  SIZE rfc-index.xml ... 7499836
> ==>  PASV ... done.    ==>  RETR rfc-index.xml ... done.
> Length: 7499836 (7.2M)
> 27% [=========>                              ] 2,083,672    179K/s  eta 52s
> 100%[======================================>] 7,499,836    178K/s   in 52s
> 2010-02-18 07:18:59 (141 KB/s) - `rfc-index.xml.1' saved [7499836]
> real	0m52.322s
> user	0m0.032s
> sys	0m0.160s
>
> (This is from my server at home, which has a Cable-based internet connection.)
>
> Are you experiencing this constantly, right now, every time?

No, the problem seems to be gone...

> ...
> (This from the same server.)
>
> And, of course, rsyncing would probably be much more efficient than FTP'ing
> anyways, so I really recommend doing it that way if at all possible.
> ...

Ack, will try that as well.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian