starred/qBittorrent

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent.git synced 2026-03-02 22:57:32 -05:00

Rate limit disk I/O while (re-)checking #9365

New issue

Open

opened 2026-02-21 20:08:19 -05:00 by deekerman · 4 comments

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:08:19 -05:00

Owner

Originally created by @supercilious on GitHub (Dec 1, 2019).

Please implement the option to reduce the disk I/O speed for check/rechecking torrents. At the moment qBittorrent completely swamps my system with I/O requests to the extent that the entire system feels sluggish due to the increased disk latency. It would be great if I could limit the checking speed to reduce or eliminate this effect. I don't mind that the checking will take longer as long as the rest of the system doesn't slow to a crawl while that is happening.

qBittorrent version and Operating System

qBittorrent v4.1.9.1 (x64) on Windows 10

What is the problem

Extreme disk I/O that causes even a fast SATA SSD to lag during torrent checking.

What is the expected behavior

Ideally, I could limit the checking speed to 100MB/s or so to prevent lag spikes for activity from other programs.

Steps to reproduce

Re-check any large torrent while there is other I/O activity taking place on the system.

Originally created by @supercilious on GitHub (Dec 1, 2019). Please implement the option to reduce the disk I/O speed for check/rechecking torrents. At the moment qBittorrent completely swamps my system with I/O requests to the extent that the entire system feels sluggish due to the increased disk latency. It would be great if I could limit the checking speed to reduce or eliminate this effect. I don't mind that the checking will take longer as long as the rest of the system doesn't slow to a crawl while that is happening. ### qBittorrent version and Operating System qBittorrent v4.1.9.1 (x64) on Windows 10 ### What is the problem Extreme disk I/O that causes even a fast SATA SSD to lag during torrent checking. ### What is the expected behavior Ideally, I could limit the checking speed to 100MB/s or so to prevent lag spikes for activity from other programs. ### Steps to reproduce Re-check any large torrent while there is other I/O activity taking place on the system.

deekerman added the

Feature request

label

2026-02-21 20:08:19 -05:00

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:08:24 -05:00

Author

Owner

@benvaljean commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2019):

In Windows you can reduce the priority, this reduce the IO priority too.

https://superuser.com/questions/496638/limiting-the-hard-drive-read-speed-for-a-program-c/496639

@benvaljean commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2019): In Windows you can reduce the priority, this reduce the IO priority too. https://superuser.com/questions/496638/limiting-the-hard-drive-read-speed-for-a-program-c/496639

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:08:24 -05:00

Author

Owner

@supercilious commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2019):

In Windows you can reduce the priority, this reduce the IO priority too.

I just tried this via Task Manager setting the qbittorrent.exe priority to the lowest possible setting. It does not help at all with the latency. The entire system still gets noticeably laggy :(

@supercilious commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2019): > In Windows you can reduce the priority, this reduce the IO priority too. I just tried this via Task Manager setting the qbittorrent.exe priority to the lowest possible setting. It does not help at all with the latency. The entire system still gets noticeably laggy :(

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:08:24 -05:00

Author

Owner

@Balls0fSteel commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2019):

Sadly Windows doesn't really provide any other kind of throttling besides Task Scheduler. For me, setting priority really helped back when IO was super limited.

@Balls0fSteel commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2019): Sadly Windows doesn't really provide any other kind of throttling besides Task Scheduler. For me, setting priority really helped back when IO was super limited.

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:08:24 -05:00

Author

Owner

@xavier2k6 commented on GitHub (May 24, 2025):

ANNOUNCEMENT!

For anybody coming across this "Feature Request" & would like/love to see a potential implementation in the future!
Here are some options available to you:

Please select/click the 👍 &/or ❤ reactions in the original/opening post of this ticket.
Please feel free (If you have the "skillset") to create a "Pull Request" implementing what's being requested in this ticket.
(new/existing contributors/developers are always welcome)

DO:

Provide constructive feedback.
Display how other projects implemented same/similar etc.

DO NOT:

Add a "Bump", "me too", "2nd/3rd" etc. or "criticizing" comment(s).
(These will be disregarded/hidden as "spam/abuse/off-topic" etc. as they don't provide anything constructive.)

@xavier2k6 commented on GitHub (May 24, 2025): ## ANNOUNCEMENT! For anybody coming across this **_"Feature Request"_** & would like/love to see a potential implementation in the future! **Here are some options available to you:** 1. Please select/click the 👍 **&/or** ❤ `reactions` in the original/opening post of this ticket. 2. Please feel free _(If you have the "skillset")_ to create a **_"Pull Request"_** implementing what's being requested in this ticket. **_(new/existing contributors/developers are always welcome)_** ____ **DO:** * Provide constructive feedback. * Display how other projects implemented same/similar etc. **DO NOT:** * Add a "Bump", "me too", "2nd/3rd" etc. or "criticizing" comment(s). **(These will be disregarded/hidden as "spam/abuse/off-topic" etc. as they don't provide anything constructive.)**