Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:54:30 +0900 From: Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com>, olce@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: noatime on ufs2 Message-ID: <20240111175430.e8070ef9415a092ac1a03a1c@dec.sakura.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <ffcb932b3835dc9e3ccdd480abbab6fe@Leidinger.net> References: <F5D2BD92-5AC3-4B1E-8B47-A1F13D9FC677.ref@yahoo.com> <F5D2BD92-5AC3-4B1E-8B47-A1F13D9FC677@yahoo.com> <ffcb932b3835dc9e3ccdd480abbab6fe@Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 08:36:24 +0100 Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: > Am 2024-01-10 22:49, schrieb Mark Millard: > > > I never use atime, always noatime, for UFS. That said, I'd never > > propose > > changing the long standing defaults for commands and calls. I'd avoid: > > [good points I fully agree on] > > There's one possibility which nobody talked about yet... changing the > default to noatime at install time in fstab / zfs set. > > I fully agree to not violate POLA by changing the default to noatime in > any FS. I always set noatime everywhere on systems I take care about, no > exceptions (any user visible mail is handled via maildir/IMAP, not > mbox). I haven't made up my mind if it would be a good idea to change > bsdinstall to set noatime (after asking the user about it, and later > maybe offer the possibility to use relatime in case it gets > implemented). I think it is at least worthwile to discuss this > possibility (including what the default setting of bsdinstall should be > for this option). > > Bye, > Alexander. > > -- > http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF > http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild@FreeBSD.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF A different aspect of view. Nowadays, storages are quickly moving from HDD, aka spinning rust, to SSD. And SSD has a risk of sudden-death of wearing out. In ancient days, HDD dies not suddenly and at least some cases admins could have time to replace suspicious drives. But SSD dies basically suddenly. IMHO, this could be a valid reason to violate POLA. In limited use cases, atime is useful, at the cost of amplified write accesses. But in most cases, it doesn't have positive functionality nowadays. Anyway, we should have time to discuss whether it should be done or not until upcoming stable/15 branch. stable/14 is already here and it wouldn't be a good thing to MFC. Only *.0-RELEASE should be the point to introduce this, unlike discussion about vi and ee on forums. -- Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20240111175430.e8070ef9415a092ac1a03a1c>