| Author |
Message |
arwa
|
|
Post subject: mount noatime vs relatime
 Posted: 17.11.2010, 07:38
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-11
Posts: 183
Status: Offline
|
|
Hello,
I just wondered if it would be better to mount devices using the relatime option instead of noatime? In aptosid noatime seems to be the default.
I am not sure which tools require a correct atime (the mount man page mentions mutt). But it seems that relatime might be a good compromise between atime and noatime? AFAIK ubuntu is using relatime.
Greetings,
arwa |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
piper
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: mount noatime vs relatime
Posted: 18.11.2010, 00:10
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 2010-09-11
Posts: 467
Location: cheektowaga, ny
Status: Offline
|
|
Can't comment on noatime vs relatime, however, > http://www.google.com/linux?q=noatime+v ... lla-search
who cares about ubuntu ? Last I knew this was aptosid ,which is NO relation to ubuntu 
Kernel developer Ingo Molnar said the following:
Atime updates are by far the biggest IO performance deficiency that Linux has today. Getting rid of atime updates would give us more everyday Linux performance than all the pagecache speedups of the past 10 years, _combined_. |
_________________
debian sid | apt-get into it
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
devil
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: mount noatime vs relatime
Posted: 18.11.2010, 00:30
|
|
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 491
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
|
|
aptosid (and debian) uses relatime already
looking at
Code:
cat /proc/mounts
will tell you.
greetz
devil |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
devil
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: mount noatime vs relatime
Posted: 18.11.2010, 00:40
|
|
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 491
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
|
|
i was wrong there, only external hd get relatime set by hal/pmount
all hd in fstab are still noatime.
greetz
devil |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
