Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:00:24 -0400 From: Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> To: Craig Boston <cb@severious.net>, Gore Jarold <gore_jarold@yahoo.com>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: noatime on / and /var too ? Message-ID: <20070910230024.GA92246@wjv.com> In-Reply-To: <20070910215812.GB10142@nowhere> References: <704329.73647.qm@web63015.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20070910215812.GB10142@nowhere>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 16:58 Craig Boston saw "Error reading FAT table? Try SKINNY table?" And promptly said: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 03:17:09PM -0700, Gore Jarold wrote: > > I know it won't change much since they are not busy > > filesystems, but if there is no risk and no "best > > practices" reason _not_ to do it, I might as well... > I always set noatime on everything for years now and have never > run into any problems with it. > Unless you're specifically using atime for something (I think > some news server software may use it), I can't think of a good > reason to leave it enabled. > Craig I've not seen news software use that by default, but I do definately run no atime on my news server. Even though it's small adding 100s to 1000s each day and expiring each night make it really un-neccesary to retain the atimes on those. I'd say that anything that gets a lot of access to many files, and there is no modification to those - archival files, web files, etc - that would be a good reason to turn on atime IMO. I only use it on user file systems and not on / or /var. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070910230024.GA92246>