xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Impact of atime updates on XFS

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Impact of atime updates on XFS
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:20:55 +0200
In-reply-to: <20070808235904.GS52011508@xxxxxxx>
References: <200708081408.01817.ms@xxxxxxxxx> <20070808235904.GS52011508@xxxxxxx> (sfid-20070809_081046_217631_CE3DEB23)
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.7
Am Donnerstag 09 August 2007 schrieb David Chinner:

> > What would be the impact of atime versus noatime on XFS? What is the
> > recommended setting for XFS? Are there any plans to implement
> > relatime logic - maybe even the improved one by Ingo Molnar - into
> > XFS?
>
> relatime is a VFS layer construct - it should work with XFS right now.

Thanks for your answer.

XFS says:

XFS: unknown mount option [relatime].

here with 

Linux shambala 2.6.21.6-tp42-cfs-v19-sws2-2.2.10 #1 PREEMPT Sun Jul 8 
21:14:29 CEST 2007 i686 GNU/Linux

> > I just remounted my partitions on the notebook and my workstation
> > with noatime for testing and I have the feeling that it indeed does
> > help.
>
> It might feel that way, but if you can't quantify it, it doesn't exist.
> Joern Engel is the only person to present hard numbers in that thread,
> and they showed pretty much no difference to performance....

Ok. I think I will try his benchmark and see whether it makes a difference 
here. Me just wonders why Ingo says it has the biggest performance impact 
ever when it doesn't. And he didn' t provide numbers. I think I will 
contact him directly about that.

Regards,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>