Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alan Cox wrote:
However, relatime has the POSIX behavior without the overhead. Therefore

No. relatime has approximately SuS behaviour. Its not the same as
"correct" behaviour.

Actually correct, but in terms of what can or does break, relatime seems a lot closer than noatime, I can't (personally) come up with any scenario where real applications would see something which would change behavior adversely.

Making noatime a default in the kernel requiring a boot option to restore current behavior seems to be a turn toward the "it doesn't really work right but it's *fast*" model. If vendors wanted noatime they are smart enough to enable it. Now with relatime giving most of the benefits and few (of any) of the side effects, I would expect a change.

By all means relatime by default in FC8, but not noatime, and let those who find some measurable benefit from noatime use it.

--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux