Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:09:56 GMT From: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@inwind.it> To: Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Softupdates question Message-ID: <20000710.19095600@bartequi.ottodomain.org> In-Reply-To: <396A0280.98065D7E@gorean.org> References: <20000709005612.A89313@localhost.localdomain> <20000709.23515500@bartequi.ottodomain.org> <3969172D.D3A30104@gorean.org> <20000710.13040500@bartequi.ottodomain.org> <396A0280.98065D7E@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 7/10/00, 6:06:08 PM, Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org> wrote regarding Re: Softupdates question: > Here is about as clear a post as you're going to get: > http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=106939+109577+/usr/local/ww w/db/text/1998/freebsd-current/19980927.freebsd-current > Try looking at the situation logically. The noatimes option causes > access time not to be written out when a file is accessed. This is part > of the metadata that softupdates optimizes the writing of. Therefore at > best, eliminating that one small piece of metadata is not likely to have > any beneficial effect. > On the other side of the coin, using softupdates & noatime together > used to cause kernel panics. It doesn't cause them anymore, but the code > to work around that bug might be affecting your performance negatively. > I'm not sure on that, but my whole point is that it is so unlikely that > the noatime option is gaining you anything that it's not worth the risk. > Doug > -- Thanks a lot, now I can see your point and your caution :-) In more recent posts, a number of people have made use of softupdates and noatime, and, implicitly or explicitly, they have suggested using the combination of both. This made me (implicitly/automatically) think that the code had been tuned accordingly: that is, it had been designed to work well even with noatime. That's why I have been using both softupdates and noatime for months: I was not aware of the potential risks. <OUT OF PURELY ACADEMIC CURIOSITY> What is the state of the art of the matter, if I may ask this forum ? As Paul Herman (and others) have written so far, there seems to be a little improvement in performance of the order of 0.001 up to 0.01 or so. (Ie, of the kind "gutta cavat lapidem"). Are there serious (or any) risks at all nowadays ? </OUT OF PURELY ACADEMIC CURIOSITY> Many, many thanks again for your time. Best regards, Salvo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000710.19095600>