Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pwnage

Utorrent has inspired me

Recommended Posts

FASTIO_READ are a lot less expensive on the system than normal reads, so it doesn't really matter how many reads they make. They're reading from the cache.

That makes no sense, how is it less taxing of the system when it reads more and more, even if it reads from cache its still overreading. 1 million reads in alittle over an hour is excessive, dont you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many billion reads/writes my seagate has made since I installed it...

a million reads/hour doesn't sound that excessive to me

now if you'll excuse me, my hookah needs refilling...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe a hard disk's failure rate is measured in just reads/writes, but rather how long it has stayed online (MTBF - Mean Time Between Failure). Most hard disks have a MTBF of what, 100,000 hours? The Raptors have something like 1.2 million hours...so if you need reliability, that's where I'd put my money on. I'm excluding SCSI drives as not all of us can afford such gems... ;)

Edit: typo...sigh... :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pwnage: http://web.archive.org/web/20031005043605/http://www.osr.com/ntinsider/1996/fastio.htm

This tight integration means that both read and write operations can often be satisfied from this cached data. In the search for performance, then, this fact can be exploited for read and write by simply calling a specialized routine which moves data from the VM cache into the user's memory, or vice versa. This eliminates the need to allocate an I/O request packet since the operation can be satisfied synchronously and need not call into lower drivers. It is this fundamental model which is realized by the fast I/O operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pwnage: because the reads are all fastio (cache) reads, which aren't really very expensive.

There still more expensive than no reads at all, now wouldnt you agree to that? Thats what i was trying to express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter. Cache reads don't matter.

Winamp, on the other hand, performs a ton of non-cache reads (IRP_MJ_READ) and directory opens/closes, which is far, far worse than foobar2000. Unlike foobar2000's cache reads, these slow reads DO have an impact on the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter. Cache reads don't matter.

Winamp, on the other hand, performs a ton of non-cache reads (IRP_MJ_READ) and directory opens/closes, which is far, far worse than foobar2000. Unlike foobar2000's cache reads, these slow reads DO have an impact on the system.

Other than you ive never heard anyone say that its far far worse... Wheres your proof for that, or are you just making stuff up, im just glad I didnt spend hours and hours trying to get my music player to look like a music player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FASTIO_READ is from the system cache. IRP_MJ_READ is not, and is a fairly slow (relatively speaking) read from the disk. Winamp makes lots of those. About half the reads, actually. It also queries the plugins directory every second, making 4 IO calls every second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pwnage, did you bother reading my post? Does reading from cache stored in RAM (FASTIO) sound expensive like reading from hard drive via IRP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any option to tone it down alittle I like using foobar, just dont like the hd ravaging. Are there any options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT'S NOT RAVAGING YOUR HD.

You didn't read anything I said. At all. It's reading from RAM (aka the Windows System Cache), not your HD! Winamp on the other hand, makes lots of reads direct from the HD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that its better for the hard drive to run foobar than it is to run winamp? I know foobars a better player, but is it really better for the hard drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Winamp really reads the file using IRP calls as often as foobar2000 reads from cache using FASTIO, then yes, it's probably more harmful than foobar2000 (and marginally at that), though I can't really prove that claim, since I'm not sure how damaging and expensive the calls really are to the hard drive either. Just a guess based on what I'm understanding so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites