Alan Cox wrote:

quoted

i cannot over-emphasise how much of a deal it is in practice. Atime 
updates are by far the biggest IO performance deficiency that Linux has 
today. Getting rid of atime updates would give us more everyday Linux 
performance than all the pagecache speedups of the past 10 years, 
_combined_.

it's also perhaps the most stupid Unix design idea of all times. Unix is 
really nice and well done, but think about this a bit:

Think about the user for a moment instead. 

Do things right. The job of the kernel is not to "correct" for
distribution policy decisions. The distributions need to change policy.
You do that by showing the distributions the numbers. 

With a Red Hat on if we can move from /dev/hda to /dev/sda in FC7 then we
can move from atime to noatime by default on FC8 with appropriate release
note warnings and having a couple of betas to find out what other than
mutt goes boom.

Is there really enough benefit between relatime and noatime to justify 
that? If atime doesn't get updated at all it *will* impact operations, 
and unless there's a real performance gain the path which provides at 
least nominal POSIX compliance seems best.

Plauger's law of least astonishment.

-- 
Bill Davidsen [off-list ref]
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>