[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Disabling atime



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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]