On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 07:59 -0400, James Hubbard wrote: > On 8/9/07, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > IMO, disabling atime by default, just because 99% of applications, don't > > use it, is short-sighted. It basically ditches a fundamental feature of > > unix filessystems and converts there behavior to "DOS'ish". > > If it's such a fundamental feature that should be kept around, why > have NFS optimization documents always recommended disabling atime > updates especially on servers where there is a lot of throughput? I don't know. > Just because it's a fundamental feature doesn't mean that it has to be > used. Fundamentally, my CPU can run at 2GHz all of the time that > doesn't mean that it should. If 99% of the applications can do > without it and probably 99% of the people can as well, why not go > ahead and get disable it. That's what people call "arrogance of the masses". Let's kill that 1%, if 99% don't care! <sarcasm> It's the same argument why people argue against utf-8, work as root (don't need uid/gids) and don't want SELinux? Let's remove all of this from the kernel, single seat/single user systems don't need all this at all. </sarcasm> > Those that need atime will eventually figure out how to turn it on. > The potential for a better user experience as well possible power > savings seems to outweigh the fundamental feature argument. A friend of mine experimented with atime/noatime yesterday: These were his results: Test case: A heavy weight compiler-job Default /etc/fstab real 5m18.226s user 4m44.557s sys 1m17.193s User+Sys: 365.750 Rebooted -- all filesystems noatime,nodiratime real 5m4.256s user 4m36.841s sys 1m8.364s User+Sys: 346.750 new / old = .9465 [Fedora-7, i386 on an AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+] Way off from the figures the proponents of notime are reporting. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
