Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:09:56 GMT
From:      Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@inwind.it>
To:        Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Softupdates question
Message-ID:  <20000710.19095600@bartequi.ottodomain.org>
In-Reply-To: <396A0280.98065D7E@gorean.org>
References:  <20000709005612.A89313@localhost.localdomain> <20000709.23515500@bartequi.ottodomain.org> <3969172D.D3A30104@gorean.org> <20000710.13040500@bartequi.ottodomain.org> <396A0280.98065D7E@gorean.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 7/10/00, 6:06:08 PM, Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org> wrote regarding=20
Re: Softupdates question:


>       Here is about as clear a post as you're going to get:

>=20
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=3D106939+109577+/usr/local/w=
w
w/db/text/1998/freebsd-current/19980927.freebsd-current

> Try looking at the situation logically. The noatimes option causes
> access time not to be written out when a file is accessed. This is=20
part
> of the metadata that softupdates optimizes the writing of. Therefore=20
at
> best, eliminating that one small piece of metadata is not likely to=20
have
> any beneficial effect.

>       On the other side of the coin, using softupdates & noatime=20
together
> used to cause kernel panics. It doesn't cause them anymore, but the=20
code
> to work around that bug might be affecting your performance=20
negatively.
> I'm not sure on that, but my whole point is that it is so unlikely=20
that
> the noatime option is gaining you anything that it's not worth the=20
risk.

> Doug
> --



Thanks a lot,

now I can see your point and your caution :-)



In more recent posts, a number of people have made use of softupdates=20
and noatime, and, implicitly or explicitly, they have suggested using=20
the combination of both.

This made me (implicitly/automatically) think that the code had been=20
tuned accordingly: that is, it had been designed to work well even=20
with noatime. That's why I have been using both softupdates and=20
noatime for months: I was  not aware of the potential risks. =20


<OUT OF PURELY ACADEMIC CURIOSITY>
What is the state of the art of the matter, if I may ask this forum ?

As Paul Herman (and others) have written so far, there seems to be a=20
little  improvement in performance of the order of 0.001 up to 0.01 or=20
so. (Ie, of the kind "gutta cavat lapidem").

Are there serious (or any) risks at all nowadays ?

</OUT OF PURELY ACADEMIC CURIOSITY>=20



Many, many thanks again for your time.

Best regards,
Salvo





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?20000710.19095600>