![]() ![]() Ive researched dozens of threads about the problem and none of them help me. Or if anyone can give a credible explanation why my preadv() emulation is based on some flawed assumptions, perhaps I should just remove it and default to coalescing buffers instead. Ive seen many posts about 'disk overloaded', but I dont understand WHY this problem exists. ![]() It would probably make sense to still make the coalesce option available, and override the preadv() emulation on windows. The reason why coalesce_reads and coalesce_writes don't do anything is because currently those options are only available for system that don't have preadv() and pwritev() (which I pretend windows does). Now, whether the kernel actually merge them or not, I don't think we can tell from process monitor, can we? My impression is that process monitor intercepts library calls, not kernel calls or actual I/O calls.ĭo you feel confident that the fact that these operations appear as individual rows in process monitor is indicative of a problem? I then wait for all operations to complete. This should let the lower layer merge them, just like normal kernels do. ![]() Which issues all reads (or writes) as overlapped (asynchronous) operations, in order, back-to-back. 15 Im using uTorrent 3.1.3 and Im getting the error 'Disk Overloaded 100' after the download speed reaches 4-5 mb/s. So, after having looked into this a bit, I'm pretty confident the vast majority of those reads (at least the ones whose offset are back-to-back) are part of my pwritev() emulation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |