Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:12:19 +0300 From: "Alexandr Kovalenko" <alexandr.kovalenko@gmail.com> To: bv@wjv.com Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Gore Jarold <gore_jarold@yahoo.com>, Craig Boston <cb@severious.net> Subject: Re: noatime on / and /var too ? Message-ID: <1d2641260709110212h73a0f304ie8ca4f5cac448d99@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070910230024.GA92246@wjv.com> References: <704329.73647.qm@web63015.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20070910215812.GB10142@nowhere> <20070910230024.GA92246@wjv.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/9/11, Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com>: > 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. setting noatime to /var may confuse some mail clients, ie mutt -- Alexandr Kovalenko http://uafug.org.ua/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1d2641260709110212h73a0f304ie8ca4f5cac448d99>