In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:45, Chema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> RC> Why would you get better performance? If you mount noatime then >> RC> there's no writes to a file system that is accessed in a read-only >> RC> fashion and there should not be any performance issue. >> >> Hum, ¿are you talking only about ext3? 'Couse I don't think the reading > > I am talking about any file system. When only reading from a file system > there should not be any performance difference when comparing a RO mount vs a > NOATIME mount. If there is a difference then it's a bug in the file system.
I guess the thread was about non-journalling filesystems beeing faster, and less of a risk if used ro. > Incidentally if you want significantly better performance for such things > then > you want to run 2.6.0 or a Red Hat kernel so you get directory hashing on > ext3. It appears from a casual code inspection that 2.6.0-test10 does not > support directory hashing for ext2. So in 2.6.0-test10 ext3 should > significantly outperform ext2 when there are large numbers of files in a > directory. I'll have to do some benchmarks on this. Yes, thats pretty interesting. > The difference it makes is that reading from the disk will never cause disk > writes. If you access large numbers of files or if you have IO hardware that > has a bottleneck of write bandwidth (EG a typical mail server) then NOATIME > makes a significant difference. News Servers are even worth. And full-filesystem scans and some backup tools make the a-time less usefull anyway. Greetings Bernd -- eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/ Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/
