[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070806065834.GB2818@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:58:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, J??rn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de,
dgc@....com, tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com, nikita@...sterfs.com,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no, yingchao.zhou@...il.com,
richard@....demon.co.uk, david@...g.hm
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8
* Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com> wrote:
> > Measurements show that noatime helps 20-30% on regular desktop
> > workloads, easily 50% for kernel builds and much more than that (in
> > excess of 100%) for file-read-intense workloads. We cannot just walk
>
> And as everybody knows in servers is a popular practice to disable it.
> According to an interview to the kernel.org admins....
yeah - but i'd be surprised if more than 1% of all Linux servers out
there had noatime.
> "Beyond that, Peter noted, "very little fancy is going on, and that is
> good because fancy is hard to maintain." He explained that the only
> fancy thing being done is that all filesystems are mounted noatime
> meaning that the system doesn't have to make writes to the filesystem
> for files which are simply being read, "that cut the load average in
> half."
nice quote :-)
> I bet that some people would consider such performance hit a bug...
yeah.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists