![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Alan Cox wrote: >> i cannot over-emphasise how much of a deal it is in practice. Atime >> updates are by far the biggest IO performance deficiency that Linux has >> today. Getting rid of atime updates would give us more everyday Linux >> performance than all the pagecache speedups of the past 10 years, >> _combined_.>>>> it's also perhaps the most stupid Unix design idea of all times. Unix is >> really nice and well done, but think about this a bit:> > Think about the user for a moment instead. > > Do things right. The job of the kernel is not to "correct" for > distribution policy decisions. The distributions need to change policy. > You do that by showing the distributions the numbers. > > With a Red Hat on if we can move from /dev/hda to /dev/sda in FC7 then we > can move from atime to noatime by default on FC8 with appropriate release > note warnings and having a couple of betas to find out what other than > mutt goes boom. Is there really enough benefit between relatime and noatime to justify that? If atime doesn't get updated at all it *will* impact operations, and unless there's a real performance gain the path which provides at least nominal POSIX compliance seems best. Plauger's law of least astonishment. -- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-08-07 19:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||