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." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
