From owner-freebsd-current Sat May 16 05:50:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10877 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 05:50:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from isbalham.ist.co.uk (isbalham.ist.co.uk [192.31.26.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA10872 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 05:50:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from gid.co.uk (uucp@localhost) by isbalham.ist.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.4) with UUCP id NAA22194; Sat, 16 May 1998 13:49:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from [194.32.164.2] by seagoon.gid.co.uk; Sat, 16 May 1998 13:47:53 +0100 (BST) X-Sender: rb@194.32.164.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980516123741.53851@follo.net> References: ; from Bob Bishop on Sat, May 16, 1998 at 10:42:50AM +0100 <354E9212.500F9F30@whistle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 13:52:42 +0100 To: Eivind Eklund From: Bob Bishop Subject: Re: Soft update vs noatime Cc: Julian Elischer , current@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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