Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:00:38 -0600 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, "Teske, Devin" <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com>, Allan Jude <freebsd@allanjude.com> Subject: Re: Defaults in 10.0 ZFS through bsdinstall Message-ID: <55AA006F-E70E-4434-84EE-97049150AEDF@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9A38EBE3-4012-4165-8655-03330277B04A@fisglobal.com> References: <20131114173423.GA21761@blazingdot.com> <59A9B68B-4134-4217-83F3-B99759174EFE@fisglobal.com> <5285148E.6020903@allanjude.com> <3D3332FA-0ABF-4573-8E65-4E7FBB37100B@fisglobal.com> <1384462198.13183.47596065.6F8E7BCD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <0CBA81A49FFC447C9452C9A27BC2D017@multiplay.co.uk> <9A38EBE3-4012-4165-8655-03330277B04A@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Nov 14, 2013, at 15:04, Teske, Devin <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Steven Hartland wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Felder" <feld@FreeBSD.org> >> To: <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> >> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:49 PM >> Subject: Re: Defaults in 10.0 ZFS through bsdinstall >> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 12:35, Teske, Devin wrote: >>>> I have never heard a good argument for having atime on. The performance >>>> penalty on ZFS is quite large, and it also makes your snapshots grow >>>> constant. If you have a use for it, you can turn it on I guess. This >>>> would be solved by having the dataset editor we're planning for 10.1 >>> POLA and POSIX, even though it was a bad decision to invent atime :-) >>> We've never turned atime off before and it would be a huge surprise to >>> me, so I'd avocate that we let the admins who know what they're doing >>> turn it off. I know many Linux distros install with noatime and/or >>> nodiratime, but I'm 99% sure tools don't create filesystems with atime >>> flagged to be off by default (tune2fs -O noatime). We don't even do installs on UFS with atime disabled by default in fstab >>> so why should we so suddenly change course for ZFS? >> >> While I can see the reason some would argue to keep it on by default >> I personally think this is a good change. >> >> Why punish everyone forever due to poor design decision made in the distant >> past, just because a few select applications make use of said feature? >> >> Is not a change which benefits the masses but comes with a slight >> inconvenience of the select few, where they need to enable a feature >> no one else needs a good idea? >> >> Sure it needs to be clearly messaged so its not a surprise, but if thats >> done I'm all for it. >> > > Sounds like a vote for enabling it where-needed by-default (e.g., /var as a whole > or more selectively, /var/mail) I'd be OK with FreeBSD taking a stance and moving to noatime by default but we should be consistent across all filesystems that a user can install the OS on from our provided installation media. We should make it obvious to the end users as well. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJShWQnAAoJEJg7ZFAfE+JSvt0H/0B8e5R7TNLoruxdvNXzbuPc M5pNCNYcrJxVNWWaMLqivsQqIlDDgOFYZDc88qK7LJKPsMieIo0cjs891M2KXLC+ 5RCTQOrLYeCxfCnoOxbSip/azYjJqC6VbDUe4j59Kgw0SyQ8UNCXrTZbyu+OPL/A DQ5s7EshnjozsJ2I1HDfSPVuUJ81F6rJtoWIbXaemdPZ+rUun/5hF4GMOyYtmMFZ ga+zc84efHXdHN7COcyORWv/F+FSfr7+PlEk3HNUEBSzmh+4SQXDlxGWzcuU5VEs MRW9YcjNWt4oN7JWfAqXLEvHKrbOqO5nbTwe4l/T+ah+xIduNu5qSSOlGaAstOk= =adGZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55AA006F-E70E-4434-84EE-97049150AEDF>