Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 9 Jun 2013 12:39:17 +0200
From:      Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd>
To:        Steven Hartland <smh@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "<fs@freebsd.org>" <fs@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Changing the default for ZFS atime to off?
Message-ID:  <2AC5E8F4-3AF1-4EA5-975D-741506AC70A5@my.gd>
In-Reply-To: <16FEF774EE8E4100AD2CAEC65276A49D@multiplay.co.uk>
References:  <16FEF774EE8E4100AD2CAEC65276A49D@multiplay.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 8 Jun 2013, at 20:54, "Steven Hartland" <smh@freebsd.org> wrote:

> One of the first changes we make here when installing machines
> here to changing atime=3Doff on all ZFS pool roots.
>=20
> I know there are a few apps which can rely on atime updates
> such as qmail and possibly postfix, but those seem like special
> cases for which admins should enable atime instead of the other
> way round.
>=20
> This is going to of particular interest for flash based storage
> which should avoid unnessacary writes to reduce wear, but it will
> also help improve performance in general.
>=20
> So what do people think is it worth considering changing the
> default from atime=3Don to atime=3Doff moving forward?
>=20
> If so what about UFS, same change?
>=20


I strongly oppose the change for reasons already raised by many people regar=
ding the mbox file.

Besides, if atime should default to off on 2 filesystems and on on all other=
s, that would definitely create confusion.

Last, I believe it should be the admin's decision to turn atime off, just li=
ke it is his decision to turn compression on.

Don't mistake me, we turn atime=3Doff on every box, every filesystem, even o=
n Mac's HFS.
Yet I believe defaulting it to off is a mistake.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2AC5E8F4-3AF1-4EA5-975D-741506AC70A5>