The other problem is with logical volumes (which I think are becoming more popular, I use them), where extents of the same file can be on different physical drives.Įither, these cases would need to have answers, or we're just talking about which approximation we would want to go with and where a reasonable cut-off of sophistication is.įor example, perhaps there could be a check to see if every file in a torrent is on the same physical drive, and only then have special logic apply to it. Problem is that some pieces may span multiple drives and are ambiguous. In principle it would be possible to have separate disk I/O threads (and job queues) for each physical drive, and stuff jobs down the right queue, depending on which drive each individual piece is on. However, you wouldn't have to stop there. So, a 'torreent' being on separate drives presumably means all files for that torrent are on one drive. The thing that makes this complicated is that (on unix systems) each individual file can in principle be on a separate drive. A simple list where each line represents a path tree in a different drive, for example: How can it know if 2 different mount points are in the same drive or in different drives? is it possible at all?Īlternatively, if it is not possible to determine automatically which mount points are in different drives, maybe qBittorrent could have a feature that let users manually specify which path trees are in different drives.

The problem is that I don't think it is possible for qBittorrent to know that. You are correct in pointing out that rechecking 2 torrents that are on separate drives drives at the same time should be faster. However, the bottleneck this tries to solve is not present across drives. For faster storage (especially in the random I/O metric) such as SSD, it is as fast if not a bit faster, while for HDDs it is drastically faster. QBittorrent rechecks one torrent at a time because one the same drive this is always at least as fast as multiple at the same time.

Anylogic torrent