From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1CfMHq-0005kH-J2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:53:06 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1CfMHq-0005k5-59
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:53:06 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CfMHq-0005k2-3P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:53:06 -0500
Received: from [195.9.147.9] (helo=dionis.simtreas.ru)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CfM76-0001KQ-Gi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:42:01 -0500
Message-ID: <41C31A97.3010309@simtreas.ru>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:42:47 +0300
From: "Vladimir N. Oleynik" <dzo@simtreas.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Windows 2000 disk full problem during install...
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: whit74@verbmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Leo,

 >> This correction adds waiting one (or zero, autorandomly) period before
 >> sending interruption after positioning before write. (see attach)
 >> But this a HACK, do not use after w2k install!

 > Can you explain why we shouldn't use this other than for win2k install?
 > I'm not too familiar with the IDE emulation and am not sure what the
 > consequences would be.  Of course, it is easy to disable at run time by
 > just setting s->ide_set_irq_from_timer = 0.  I am just trying to
 > understand more about this - what the real problem seems to be, what the
 > danger of using this hack after install is, etc.

The periods of the timer too big.
After that hack the host-system will be all more and to be slowed down
at the reference to fragments files.

 > I will investigate your AIO solution as well - do you feel that it is
 > more correct than this non-AIO patch?

Yes. But I offered idea which most likely works only for softmmu variant
and may be not works for qemu-fast/usermode.
I can`t test -fast variant and unlike -usermode.


--w
vodz