Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 12:39:17 +0200 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: Steven Hartland <smh@freebsd.org> Cc: "<fs@freebsd.org>" <fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Changing the default for ZFS atime to off? Message-ID: <2AC5E8F4-3AF1-4EA5-975D-741506AC70A5@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <16FEF774EE8E4100AD2CAEC65276A49D@multiplay.co.uk> References: <16FEF774EE8E4100AD2CAEC65276A49D@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 Jun 2013, at 20:54, "Steven Hartland" <smh@freebsd.org> wrote: > One of the first changes we make here when installing machines > here to changing atime=off on all ZFS pool roots. > > I know there are a few apps which can rely on atime updates > such as qmail and possibly postfix, but those seem like special > cases for which admins should enable atime instead of the other > way round. > > This is going to of particular interest for flash based storage > which should avoid unnessacary writes to reduce wear, but it will > also help improve performance in general. > > So what do people think is it worth considering changing the > default from atime=on to atime=off moving forward? > > If so what about UFS, same change? > I strongly oppose the change for reasons already raised by many people regarding the mbox file. Besides, if atime should default to off on 2 filesystems and on on all others, that would definitely create confusion. Last, I believe it should be the admin's decision to turn atime off, just like it is his decision to turn compression on. Don't mistake me, we turn atime=off on every box, every filesystem, even on Mac's HFS. Yet I believe defaulting it to off is a mistake.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2AC5E8F4-3AF1-4EA5-975D-741506AC70A5>