Firstly, that would require installing it :). Secondly, this is being served by a very old server which, from empirical testing, wouldn't cope with this type of

Firstly, that would require installing it :). Secondly, this is being served by a very old server which, from empirical testing, wouldn't cope with this type of protocol. Thirdly, I have to keep borrowed bandwidth to a manageable level during business hours, which ideally means making it tend to zero in the long term. I was anticipating a mirror to continue serving this data but it would have been rude to ask. Anyhow, I was expecting at most 20 concurrent connections before traffic decayed. I wasn't expecting concurrent connections from 56 unique IP addresses. The server is in London and it is transferring 1.7MB/s, mostly to European users. However, latency and routing to US clients seems to drastically reduce throughput to those users. Most of the HTTP 206 [Partial] requests seem to be from Internet Explorer, despite this being a relatively obscure choice on this forum. I can only suppose that IE is quite inclined to re-establish connections after a connection briefly stalls. The latter would be because the httpd state creeped 39MB into virtual memory on this 64MB RAM server. This would also be why TCP window scaling didn't occur. Anyhow, I knew it was risky to use this server to serve relatively large files but it will be used in the future for posting smaller tidbits.