Greetings,
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:03 AM, nate wrote:
> Rob Kampen wrote:
>
> For DB performance there's a lot more useful areas to spend time
> tuning. As DBAs often say you can get 10% more performance tuning
> the OS and getting better hardware, and you can get 1000% better
> performance by t
Rob Kampen wrote:
> I do not agree - every read of the db will update the filesystem with
> noatime missing, thus specifying noatime does give performance
> improvements - the size of the files does not matter as much - rather
> the number of reads vs writes.
Interesting, didn't think about that
nate wrote:
Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
But in a production db server, which is backed up by HP DP, is it
advisable to mount with noatime?
noatime typically helps when dealing with lots of files, most DB servers
have a small number of files that are large in size, so noatime is
likel
On 2/3/2010 2:45 PM, nate wrote:
> Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
>
>> But in a production db server, which is backed up by HP DP, is it
>> advisable to mount with noatime?
>
> noatime typically helps when dealing with lots of files, most DB servers
> have a small number of files that are large in si
Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
> But in a production db server, which is backed up by HP DP, is it
> advisable to mount with noatime?
noatime typically helps when dealing with lots of files, most DB servers
have a small number of files that are large in size, so noatime is
likely not to provide any
On 3 February 2010 12:52, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:38 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>
>> RHEL doesn't have a reltime enabled kernel so centos doesn't either by
>> default. I believe that there is a kernel in plus that is reltime
>> enabled but due to potentially breaking ABI compat
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:38 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
> RHEL doesn't have a reltime enabled kernel so centos doesn't either by
> default. I believe that there is a kernel in plus that is reltime
> enabled but due to potentially breaking ABI compatibility with RHEL I
> don't make use of it.
As you
On 3 February 2010 10:20, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am aware that mounting filesystems with noatime option greatly
> increases speed.
>
> I have tried to follow discussion on the pros and cons of using noatime.
>
> I have however not been able to mount with the option relatim
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Rajagopal Swaminathan
wrote:
> I am aware that mounting filesystems with noatime option greatly
> increases speed.
>
> I have tried to follow discussion on the pros and cons of using noatime.
>
> I have however not been able to mount with the option relatime in cen
Greetings,
I am aware that mounting filesystems with noatime option greatly
increases speed.
I have tried to follow discussion on the pros and cons of using noatime.
I have however not been able to mount with the option relatime in centos 5.2.
But in a production db server, which is backed up b
10 matches
Mail list logo
