Messages in this thread | | | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: Performance of ext3 on large systems | Date | Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:05:17 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
> > 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/
| |