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 13:06:12 +0200
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20070809101544.GZ12413810@xxxxxxx>
References: <200708081408.01817.ms@xxxxxxxxx> <200708090820.55509.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070809101544.GZ12413810@xxxxxxx> (sfid-20070809_125925_922049_8B1C4B50)
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.7
Am Donnerstag 09 August 2007 schrieb David Chinner:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 08:20:55AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > 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].
>
> That's because it's supposed to be encoded in the mount flags (i.e.
> intercepted by the mount binary and not passed to the kernel
> directly). I think you need a more recent mount binary....

Exactly. After I upgraded mount debian package 2.12r-19 to 2.13~rc3-1 
mount -o remount,relatime works.

Thanks.

I got a response back from Ingo and he said, that on ext3 atime updates 
are very visible while XFS does some journalling tricks to mitigate it. 
He doubts that I will see much difference on XFS as it has less strict 
synchronisation rules than ext3.

-- 
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>