noEmbryo

>Might the difference between yt-dlp and yt-dl be related to the Python version? No, I don't think so. I tested both in 3.7. Also the `yt-dl` has almost the same...

>Also, https://lwn.net/Articles/872869/. The code I use is not optimized of course, but the memory usage (for the non released objects) was not of my concern. The think we should remember...

> In OP's application, this time may be wasted if the media URLs are not being used (or if the response expires before then -- does it expire?). I'm not...

>This is very surprising if true. yt-dlp's youtube extractor is much more complex than youtube-dl's and is known to be slower (at the benefit of more robustness/features). > >Verify that...

>And users don't get 404s or throttled bandwidth using the media links some time after unthrottling ? As, I said, not until they expire, after ~6 hours that give a...

>Apply the patch to the installed master version. Can you tell me how to do it? Sorry for that, but I don't use git that much, so I'm ignorant of...

>But, as I'll put this in anyway, the patched source file here. Thank you, I tested it and its faster than the current. In 2.7 it gets me ~65-70 sec...

OK, bad news. After the recent [update](https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues/31164) things got far worse! From the ~60/40 sec it got up to 180. It is getting unusable when it comes to playlists.. :cry:

| Program | Python | Client | Threads | time | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | | `youtube_dl` | 2.7x86 | web | 1...

Also, the throttling is back.. :angry: I couldn't find a new issue about it. Should I open a new one? P.S. A [throttled link for test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw1TnOHizxs)