Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 13:24:37 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: rashid@rk.ios.com (Rashid Karimov) Cc: davidg@Root.COM, jgreco@solaria.sol.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Breaking ffs - speed enhancement? Message-ID: <199605292024.NAA14236@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199605291750.NAA23605@rk.ios.com> from "Rashid Karimov" at May 29, 96 01:50:04 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >Am I just totally whacked out, or is this perhaps a reasonable thing to do, > > >given that I'd really rather not have to absorb the extra write activity on > > >the filesystems... does anybody else perceive any value along these lines > > >of thought? > > > > I added an option "noatime" to mount/fstab and implemented a special > > per-mount flag for this in the kernel. I was only interested in disabling > > the access time; I wanted the inode change time and modify times to still > > work correctly. My application, of course, was wcarchive - a machine with > > millions of files that spends about 1/3-1/2 of all of it's disk I/O just > > updating the access times in the inodes. > > David, could you submit those patches ? May be we can even add > this as an OPTION to the kernel config file? There is a school of thought that says "shall be updated" in POSIX is not the same as "shall be committed to stable storage" (the traditional BSD implementation). This would let access times be updated in core, but only scheduled to be written at a later time (not forced out immediately). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605292024.NAA14236>