On 06/08/2013 04:13 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > Yes, but none of these results show the .12s time that your first > noatime test run showed in your original post. If you are now saying > that atime is faster than noatime by about .005 to .010s, then these > results seem to show that. But your original post was from .019 to .12, > or a difference of .10+s. That was cache load time, not just the > syscall difference. Hmm, someone is misreading the results. I've reread multiple times, and I see a difference of 12s, not .12s. ---> real 0m12.645s ---> user 0m0.003s ---> sys 0m0.159s And 12 seconds (elapsed, with 0.159s system) means 12s/5000=2.4ms which could only be explained with the auditing system doing fsync calls on its log files. -- Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
