Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:05:53 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: terry@lambert.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mount -o async on a news servre Message-ID: <199701121905.OAA13998@crh.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199701121851.LAA25856@phaeton.artisoft.com> from Terry Lambert at "Jan 12, 97 11:51:35 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Sorry; you are mistaken.
>
> The "noatime" option says not to act on access time update events.
>
> The majority of FS updates that result from read activity are the
> access time being updated on getdents() calls in opendir/readdir;
> a Minor number of access events are generated for the article files
> themselves.
>
> You seem to be confusing "noatime" with "async". The "async" option
> acts pretty much as you describe.
You've misread what I said. Using atime with sync's done every 300 seconds I
would beleive is very similar in performance to async, without the risks. This
is of course only in the case of a news spool.
> You could rephrase this as "Is there any safe way to run 'async'?",
> with the answer being "Yes, if you only read from, and never post
> directly to, the 'async' server".
No No, perhaps I wasnt clear. I was never advocating running async, its a big
bad idea IMHO. I was attempting to show that running with noatime and sync's
pushed back to be infrequent (300 seconds) you get nearly the performance win
of async, without the risks..
-Crh
Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu
http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701121905.OAA13998>