Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 13:52:42 +0100 From: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Soft update vs noatime Message-ID: <l03020902b1833be0e024@[194.32.164.2]> In-Reply-To: <19980516123741.53851@follo.net> References: <l03020900b1830fcf8550@[194.32.164.2]>; from Bob Bishop on Sat, May 16, 1998 at 10:42:50AM %2B0100 <354E9212.500F9F30@whistle.com> <l03020900b1830fcf8550@[194.32.164.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:37 pm +0200 16/5/98, Eivind Eklund wrote: >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.[etc] That's what I wanted to know. FWIW, buildworld time here with softupdates is just about identical with what it used to be with async,noatime. I was just wondering about any further improvement. -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK 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?l03020902b1833be0e024>