Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:59:30 +0100 From: Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: noatime switch on local mount - anything really need the atime field ? Message-ID: <20020131185930.GA2520@raggedclown.net> In-Reply-To: <20020131191902.P68986@roman.mobil.cz> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020131112513.00aa6c20@postoffice.swbell.net> <20020131191902.P68986@roman.mobil.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 07:19:02PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:36:48 -0600 > > To: questions@freebsd.org > > From: Sean O'Neill <sean@seanoneill.info> > > Subject: noatime switch on local mount - anything really need the atime > > field ? > > > > Does anything really use the atime field of inodes? > > > > Reading that atime update really isn't that big of a hit for casual systems > > (expect for make world stuff) like mine but hey, never hurts to get a > > little more performance out of my box :) > > MUAs use atime of mbox-type mailboxes to be able to tell whether new > mail has arrived. (Properly working MDA doesn't update atime when > storing a message in an mbox-type mailbox. MUA then sees mtime > > atime, and marks the mailbox as having new mail.) > Well you can use it in "find" for whatever reason as well. I should think any performance gain a small system might gain for it would be infinitesimally small, and as noted above, it will break new mail notification. -- Regards Cliff 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?20020131185930.GA2520>