Qingqing Zhou wrote:
I don't think your NT overlapped I/O code is quite right. At leastOn Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Gavin Sherry wrote: I think it will issue reads at a high rate without waiting for any of them to complete. Beyond some point that has to give the kernel gut-rot. But anyway, I wouldn't expect the use of aio to make any significant difference in an already threaded test program. The point of aio is to allow I/O concurrency _without_ the use of threads or multiple processes. You could re-write your program to have a single thread but use aio. In that case it should show the same read ahead benefit that you see with the thread. |
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan thread David Boreham
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan thread Qingqing Zhou
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan thread David Boreham
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan thread Gavin Sherry
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan thread Martijn van Oosterhout
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan thread David Boreham
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan thread Martijn van Oosterhout
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan thre... David Boreham
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan... Martijn van Oosterhout
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker scan... Gavin Sherry
- Re: [HACKERS] ice-broker ... Simon Riggs
