Messages in this thread | | | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: Performance of ext3 on large systems | Date | Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:22:22 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
> > Actually, it makes sense in a way - noatime only speeds up reads, not > > writes, (access time is always updated on a write), whereas a > > journaled filesystem is presumably intended to be tuned for write > > performance. So, for it's intended usage, not implementing noatime > > shouldn't be a huge problem, although it would be useful. > > But updating the access time _is_ a write, even if its due to a read. > And using 'noatime' does help, and it is implemented. I guess Andrew's > statement was just misinterpreted, because this is what he said.
Well, yes, but that's not what I was saying - what was saying is that if you are primarily reading anyway, there isn't much to be gained from using EXT-3, over EXT-2.
If you are primarily writing, EXT-3 atime should be faster than EXT-2 noatime. EXT-3 notime will obviously be even faster.
John. - 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/
| |