On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 04:50:07PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Again, this is not async I/O.  I'm not being pedantic.  I am trying
> to correct your gross misuse of the term "asynchronous".  Multiple
> simultaneous reads do not require async I/O.  They require multiple
> threads.

It could potentially also work with asynchronous I/O... depending on
the implementation (i.e. the I/O scheduler) and the hardware.

> Anyway, I suspect that you are wasting your time with this.  

On that, I'm inclined to agree.  You suggested a bunch of solutions
that would probably provide a much bigger boost.  My employer has
recently started using SSDs with good success (after a lot of hardware
stress testing), for example.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.