Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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
+1 for real numbers!!!
Though the test would seem better if there was an explicit reboot before
the first test, to make sure caches are in basically the same state.
[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.
I didn't see that many people reporting numbers. But are you kidding,
5+% is HUGE! (both sarcasm and sincerity). I mean, for something that
is basically FREE.
And you also failed to remind people of the other key HUGE benefit (I
think, if I've been following this correctly)- that (laptop) drives
would never get needless writes for every file read. I.e. if I
understand correctly, reading a file thats in cache won't cause the
drive to need to be spun up to update the atime.
-dmc
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
