Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8

[Bill Davidsen]

Alan Cox wrote:
> > However, relatime has the POSIX behavior without the overhead. Therefore 
>
> No. relatime has approximately SuS behaviour. Its not the same as
> "correct" behaviour.
Actually correct, but in terms of what can or does break, relatime seems 
a lot closer than noatime, I can't (personally) come up with any 
scenario where real applications would see something which would change 
behavior adversely.

Making noatime a default in the kernel requiring a boot option to 
restore current behavior seems to be a turn toward the "it doesn't 
really work right but it's *fast*" model. If vendors wanted noatime they 
are smart enough to enable it. Now with relatime giving most of the 
benefits and few (of any) of the side effects, I would expect a change.

By all means relatime by default in FC8, but not noatime, and let those 
who find some measurable benefit from noatime use it.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/