lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] relatime: Make relatime smarter
    On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 12:10:25PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
    > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:40:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:18:09AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
    > > > Matthew Garrett wrote:
    > > > > The time between atime updates can be configured at boot
    > > > > with the relatime_interval kernel argument, or at runtime through a sysctl.
    > > >
    > > > Shouldn't it be a per-mount value, with defaults coming from the sysctl?
    > >
    > > Perhaps a more sensible question would be "Why make it configurable at
    >
    > this is GNOME-mentality :-)

    Yes, I frequently pal around with terrorists.

    > > all?" What's wrong with hardcoding 24 hours? Or, to put it another
    > > way, who wants to change it from 24 hours, and why?
    >
    > Why do you think that 24 hours is the right default value? Do you
    > have any logical argument for this setting?

    Once a day seems like a good value to me. It's a good human being
    timescale and still cuts down the number of atime updates by a lot.

    If somebody really cares, they could graph the relatime_update value
    against number of writes performed in a given period and determine a
    better cutoff. I can think of a hundred better ways to spend my time
    though.

    Good job of not answering the question, by the way. Why _not_ 24 hours?

    --
    Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
    "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
    operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
    a retrograde step."


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-12-02 17:49    [W:0.020 / U:31.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site