Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request][Performance]Attempt to improve Disk I/O via Exposing libtorrent's 1.2.x piece_extent_affinity feature in qBittorrent 4.2.x advanced options. #11436

Open
xavier2k6 opened this issue Nov 1, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@xavier2k6
Copy link

@xavier2k6 xavier2k6 commented Nov 1, 2019

Please provide the following information

qBittorrent version and Operating System

(4.2.x/Cross Platform/libtorrent 1.2.x)

If on linux, libtorrent-rasterbar and Qt version

(N/A)

What is the problem

(poor disk I/O utilization)

What is the expected behavior

(qBittorrent 4.2.x - Expose in advanced options affinity piece picker introduced in libtorrent 1.2.x that allows to create an affinity to pick adjecent pieces aligned to 4MiB extents. It's an attempt to improve disk I/O, by writing larger contiguous ranges of bytes. It's OFF by DEFAULT.)

Steps to reproduce

(N/A)

Extra info(if any)

related info - libtorrent #3746
related info - libtorrent #3776
related info - libtorrent #3753
forum discussion

@fusk-l I believe you were the one trying to run the benchmarks in the forum so this may be of relevance to you & any other info that you could add to this request would be of benefit, thanks.

@xavier2k6 xavier2k6 changed the title [Feature Request][Performance]Expose libtorrent's 1.2.x piece_extent_affinity feature in qBittorrent 4.2.x advanced options. [Feature Request][Performance]Attempt to improve Disk I/O via Exposing libtorrent's 1.2.x piece_extent_affinity feature in qBittorrent 4.2.x advanced options. Nov 1, 2019
@fusk-l

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@fusk-l fusk-l commented Nov 1, 2019

I believe you might be referring to switeck, he has done a lot more in depth testing that i have. But i have been somewhat active around the topics as it affected me a lot, which is also why i have not used qbit for some time now. And why i created a wishlist #11419

@xavier2k6

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@xavier2k6 xavier2k6 commented Nov 1, 2019

apologies - i thought you were same user as fusk in forum thread above & 3776 issue in libtorrent.

@fusk-l

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@fusk-l fusk-l commented Nov 1, 2019

I am, switeck has just done a lot more actual testing.

@Seeker2

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@Seeker2 Seeker2 commented Nov 4, 2019

"adjecent pieces aligned to 4MiB extents"
...assumes qBitTorrent (or rather libtorrent) has some way of knowing where the page alignments are for the underlying storage medium.
For a badly set-up RAID, that can be confusing/hard/impossible to determine remotely.

I used Windows-based Process Monitor to see how qBT was reading/writing to my storage devices...until recently it was doing a LOT of little 16 KB size chunks, despite arvidn saying it shouldn't be...
I have not done proper testing since coalesce reads/writes were added to libtorrent+qBT.

Lastly, I usually download to a 2-7 GB sized ramdrive (obviously smaller torrents) to mostly avoid file fragmentation that qBT is so good at causing when download directly to a HDD using NTFS with sparse files enabled.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.