in reply to Re: Seeking general directions for a Windows specific app
in thread Seeking general directions for a Windows specific app

To know whether you can do your C: -> F: and D: -> G: in parallel you'd have to know these are all different PHYSICAL drives (well, I would not worry about two remote mapped drives being the same). If C: and D: reside on the same harddrive, they can't be performed completely in parallel. In general, I would leave this to the user, if he enqueued the operation, he wants it to start after the previous one(s) complete.

  • Comment on Re^2: Seeking general directions for a Windows specific app

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Seeking general directions for a Windows specific app
by blazar (Canon) on Aug 14, 2008 at 22:41 UTC

    To be fair, I hadn't even remotely thought of (i) the problem of logical drives being really part of the same physical drives, nor -more importantly- of (ii) plobsing++'s subtleties, assuming naively that a much simpler logic involving (something like) a %is_in_use hash holding arrayrefs of "transfers" (of which the first one to be considered active) would do. But eventually you're right that if I still roll up this enqueing utility/experiment of mine, then I may want to skip all the hassle and just enque everything at the user's request.

    --
    If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.