Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:02:48 +0100 From: Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@sdaoden.eu> To: Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> Cc: Olivier Certner <olce@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: noatime on ufs2 Message-ID: <20240116230248.Rf6LfoWs@steffen%sdaoden.eu> In-Reply-To: <9155214edb61b1bc3bad3bc96f96e22b@bsdforge.com> References: <ZZqmmM-6f606bLJx@int21h> <CAGMYy3vsSD7HHtGxYXJn%2Busr8GCOd-0Xe1crs-Nx=qw-bYJ6HA@mail.gmail.com> <2eabfb91-afc3-47f7-98b9-1a1791ae6e7d@app.fastmail.com> <6714298.qJWK8QVVMX@ravel> <9155214edb61b1bc3bad3bc96f96e22b@bsdforge.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris wrote in <9155214edb61b1bc3bad3bc96f96e22b@bsdforge.com>: ... |I haven't seen anything in this thread that wouldn't be better placed in |tuning(7) |or tunefs(8). | |* Silicon disks fail without warning | tapes did as well. Unless you're working with punch cards please \ | implement |an | effective backup strategy -- snapshot(8) |* writing to my disk takes a long time | see tuning(7) or tunefs(8) |* atime doesn't work like "realtime" does on Linux | use Linux instead or add the ability to also use realtime 'Seems to me from a "git grep" that ZFS supports relatime. The number of atime matches for ufs is not that horrifying either. Sure the daily disc crawler touches anything, as was said, so relatime does not help once. For that the crawlers (locate, whatis, whatever) would need to use O_NOATIME, but FreeBSD says /* XXX LINUX_O_NOATIME: unable to be easily implemented. */, so that sucks. Maybe then noatime is the better way out. Having said that, i have never tried it, whether nullfs overmount for the crawlers would get over that. Would be a good thing i'd say, for jailed servers or what. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20240116230248.Rf6LfoWs>