:..
:>
:> Another example would be "oops", which is a very fast,
:> lightweight web proxy. It uses cyclic buffer files to
:> store the cached data, similar to INN's CNFS.
:>
:> I think in the above cases, a "nomtime" option would indeed
:> save some unnecessary overhead.
:
:Probably not much, especially if you are using soft updates. The
:in-kernel copy of the inode will get updated on every write, but the
:on-disk copy will only get written when the soft updates timer for it
:goes off, which I think would be once every 10 seconds and is tunable. I
:don't think you'll see much reduction in load compared to all the other
:I/O that's going on.
atime/mtime/ctime updates will collect in the in-memory inode
and only be written to disk when the filesystem sync occurs once
every 30-60 seconds or so. This is how it works with or without
softupdates.
:Noatime won't help much in your examples either. It only buys you a lot
:if the data is spread over a large number of files.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
