On Friday 14 May 2010 12:55:45 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Friday 14 May 2010, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > noatime "breaks" a few applications. I recommend against it. > > > > I've not seen similar issues with relatime, although it is theoretically > > possible. I mount using relatime, normally. > > It breaks mutt, relatime was invented to fix the mutt issue. A lot of > netbooks and machines with only SSDs use noatime now, if noatime broke > anything serious at any point, those issues will have been solved by now, > SSDs have been out for some time and they need noatime. SSDs marketed for HD replacement do not need noatime. They have re-write limits such that, if written to at maximum speed for the lifetime of a comparable HD, less than the number of reserved cells would fail and no data would be lost. They are roughly 1.5 orders of magnitude more durable than "thumbdrives" -- they have to be to stand a MS Windows page file or a Linux swap partition/file. noatime can increase performance, it does so by breaking the expectations of at least mutt (possibly others). atime updates are a normal expectation, since they've been included in the documentation of dozens of UNIX system calls since before standardization started on POSIX. relatime is a much better alternative and is roughly equivalent to the OS deciding to combine atime updates, which is explicitly allowed by the standards. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.