[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Performance of ext3 on large systems
> > 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.

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 13:33    [W:0.046 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site