From owner-freebsd-current  Sat May 16 12:11:26 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22712
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 12:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA22707
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 16 May 1998 12:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from julian@whistle.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA24522;
	Sat, 16 May 1998 12:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22)
 via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpd024510; Sat May 16 19:05:55 1998
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 12:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>
cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Soft update vs noatime
In-Reply-To: <l03020900b1830fcf8550@[194.32.164.2]>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980516120445.16642G-100000@current1.whistle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

I have not tested that combination
however I think that softupdates may make no-atime less useful.
(though leaving atimes out totally would still be most efficient)


On Sat, 16 May 1998, Bob Bishop wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Is there any reason not to use noatime with soft updates?
> 
> 
> --
> 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