On 06/09/2013 09:53 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > 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. > You're right, I was going from memory and I did not remember it being 12 seconds, I thought it was .12 seconds. This most certainly is not just the effects of loading cache. A 12 second cache load would only happen if you are loading from stone tablet... -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
