On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:24:55PM +0100, ?ric Piel wrote: > Yes, it might bring important drawbacks: performance-wise, relatime will > become more like atime, making it much less useful. There is also a > significant number of desktop computers that are turned on once a day, > the boot time may get hindered by those additional writes. Huh? Nobody's ever claimed that atime writes cost a significant amount of performance. The problem that relatime is designed to solve is *spin-up* when a file is accessed. > Actually, you are changing relatime from a boolean condition (maximum > one additional write per write) to a atime with a coarse grain (maximum > one additional write per day). Today you found a use case that needs a > precision of one day. Tomorrow, someone else will find a use case that > needs a precision of one hour. So maybe what is actually needed is a > third option, a "grainatime" option where you can change the precision > of the atime. You're really over-thinking this. -- 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
