← Back to context Comment by ozgrakkurt 21 hours ago Async does make nvme io faster because queueing multiple operations on the nvme itself is faster. 2 comments ozgrakkurt Reply mbid 8 hours ago This is outside of my expertise, but wouldn't multiple threads each submitting a single operation in parallel have the same effect? ozgrakkurt 8 hours ago That is still “async” considering what gp wrote.Because they wrote “thread per task” which I assume to mean something like “each os thread handles the work submitted by one user”.This is beside the point but, something like io_uring is still significantly better than doing threadpool nvme io.
mbid 8 hours ago This is outside of my expertise, but wouldn't multiple threads each submitting a single operation in parallel have the same effect? ozgrakkurt 8 hours ago That is still “async” considering what gp wrote.Because they wrote “thread per task” which I assume to mean something like “each os thread handles the work submitted by one user”.This is beside the point but, something like io_uring is still significantly better than doing threadpool nvme io.
ozgrakkurt 8 hours ago That is still “async” considering what gp wrote.Because they wrote “thread per task” which I assume to mean something like “each os thread handles the work submitted by one user”.This is beside the point but, something like io_uring is still significantly better than doing threadpool nvme io.
This is outside of my expertise, but wouldn't multiple threads each submitting a single operation in parallel have the same effect?
That is still “async” considering what gp wrote.
Because they wrote “thread per task” which I assume to mean something like “each os thread handles the work submitted by one user”.
This is beside the point but, something like io_uring is still significantly better than doing threadpool nvme io.