Ralf Corsepius wrote:
A friend of mine experimented with atime/noatime yesterday: These were his results: Test case: A heavy weight compiler-job Default /etc/fstab real 5m18.226s user 4m44.557s sys 1m17.193s User+Sys: 365.750 Rebooted -- all filesystems noatime,nodiratime real 5m4.256s user 4m36.841s sys 1m8.364s User+Sys: 346.750 new / old = .9465
+1 for real numbers!!!Though the test would seem better if there was an explicit reboot before the first test, to make sure caches are in basically the same state.
[Fedora-7, i386 on an AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+] Way off from the figures the proponents of notime are reporting.
I didn't see that many people reporting numbers. But are you kidding, 5+% is HUGE! (both sarcasm and sincerity). I mean, for something that is basically FREE.
And you also failed to remind people of the other key HUGE benefit (I think, if I've been following this correctly)- that (laptop) drives would never get needless writes for every file read. I.e. if I understand correctly, reading a file thats in cache won't cause the drive to need to be spun up to update the atime.
-dmc