Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> If you are suffering the latter then I would certainly agree with
> the suggestion to mount with noatime, I do this routinely for any file
> system which gets heavy random file access because atime updates will
> cripple performance on any filesystem I have ever used by making the discs
> spend more time seeking than reading. It does sound like hammer may suffer
> more than other filesystems from this.
This is possible. However I don't want to mount all my file systems
noatime. I'm using atime regularly for various purposes, so I don't
really want to run without it. Maybe I can try it though.
I think even with atime turned on, a filesystem needs to perform
acceptable. I'm not talking about high throughput. I'm talking about
xterm+shell taking >10s until the prompt appears, or vim occasionally
hanging for several seconds.
cheers
simon
--
<3 the future +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\
rock the past +++ space for low CHF NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ /
Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \
Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \