Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 12:37:41 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Soft update vs noatime Message-ID: <19980516123741.53851@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <l03020900b1830fcf8550@[194.32.164.2]>; from Bob Bishop on Sat, May 16, 1998 at 10:42:50AM %2B0100 References: <354E9212.500F9F30@whistle.com> <l03020900b1830fcf8550@[194.32.164.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 10:42:50AM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any reason not to use noatime with soft updates? Previously it changed some graphs, which broke soft updates. I don't know if that is fixed - personally, I'm not certain it need to be fixed, as writing the atime should be much less noticable with soft updates. We will of course need to deny noatime on a soft updated filesystem Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980516123741.53851>