[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16 revisited
On Thu, 2001-11-29 at 02:14, Andrew Morton wrote:

> If you can generate hard numbers (just time the RP command, for a start)
> and they show regression, then go ahead and post!
> Let's put the atime thing down as a known ext3 problem for a
> while. (does it happen with ext2? You sure?).
> Running noatime won't hurt a thing. It just prevents the kernel
> from recording when a file was last accessed, within the file's
> inode. It's a feature whichis used by backup/archiving programs,
> and probably by mailbox monitoring programs (xbiff, etc). People
> turn it off all the time...

ok, I doubled checked things. It seems mounting an ext3 filesystem as
ext2 is somewhat a myth. If the kernel supports ext3 it still mounts it
as ext3 even if /etc/fstab says ext2. When I tried 2.4.16 with ext3
support, but with the journal exactly removed to make it a ext2
filesystem the --rebuild worked just like it does in 2.4.9-13. So it
does seem to be a problem with just ext3, and I guess they changed the
journaling of atimes between the version in 2.4.9-13 and 2.4.16. It all
now makes sense. Thank you for your help.

As for my comment before and Rik's VM vs AA's VM on cache agressiveness,
it looks like I was off. It just seems to vary on some dynamic. I
thought I checked them at the same points after boot, but between
different boots seemed to get different results, who knows.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.073 / U:0.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site