Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:54:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:54:09 -0500 Received: from [81.2.122.30] ([81.2.122.30]:15366 "EHLO darkstar.example.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:54:08 -0500 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200302171705.h1HH5Isl010627@darkstar.example.net> Subject: Re: Performance of ext3 on large systems To: matti.aarnio@zmailer.org (Matti Aarnio) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:05:17 +0000 (GMT) Cc: rml@tech9.net, sneakums@zork.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20030217164740.GS1073@mea-ext.zmailer.org> from "Matti Aarnio" at Feb 17, 2003 06:47:40 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1053 Lines: 27 > > Well, yes, but that's not what I was saying - what was saying is that > > if you are primarily reading anyway, there isn't much to be gained > > from using EXT-3, over EXT-2. > > Besides of data robustness. Well yes, but that only matters if the filesystem isn't unmounted cleanly. > > If you are primarily writing, EXT-3 atime should be faster than EXT-2 > > noatime. EXT-3 notime will obviously be even faster. > > No. For primarily writing the 'noatime' effect disappears in background > noice. Every time you write into file, mtime will be updated, and also > ctime. Only one of i-node timestamps _not_ updated is atime... Well, that's what I was implying, that for primarily writing, EXT-3 should be better than EXT-2, regardless of the atime configuration. So, we agree :-). John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/