From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 18 17:00:23 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B08716A41F; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:00:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from rock.polstra.com (rock.polstra.com [64.119.0.113]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 097B513C45B; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:00:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from [10.0.0.64] (adsl-sj-9-160.rockisland.net [64.119.9.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by rock.polstra.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5IGiadf021386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:44:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Message-ID: <4676B674.4030104@polstra.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:44:36 -0700 From: John Polstra User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Macintosh/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xin LI References: <46769B76.60502@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <46769B76.60502@delphij.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (rock.polstra.com [64.119.0.113]); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why vfs.timestamp_precision is set to 0 by default? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:00:23 -0000 Xin LI wrote: > Recently while I'm looking into the VFS code I found that we set > vfs.timestamp_precision to 0 by default. Is there any reason not to set > this to, for instance 1 by default? My rough test indicates that the > performance affect is almost negligible... If I remember correctly, I set the default to 0 for compatibility -- i.e., so that the fractional seconds would continue to be set to 0 as before. That was probably too conservative. John