> What is wrong with noatime,relatime? I'm using them for a long time as
> good compromise in terms of performance.
The one option ends up canceling the other, as they're both atime related
options that say do different things.

I'd have to actually setup a test or do some research to be sure which
one overrides the other (but someone here probably can say without
further research), tho I'd /guess/ the latter one overrides the earlier
one, which would effectively make them both pretty much useless, since
relatime is the normal kernel default and thus doesn't need to be
specified.

Noatime is strongly recommended for btrfs, however, particularly with
snapshots, as otherwise, the changes between snapshots can consist mostly
of generally useless atime changes.

(FWIW, after over a decade of using noatime here (I first used it on the
then new reiserfs, after finding a recommendation for it on that), I got
tired of specifying the option on nearly all my fstab entries, and now
days carry a local kernel patch that changes the default to noatime,
allowing me to drop specifying it everywhere.  I don't claim to be a
coder, let alone a kernel level coder, but as a gentooer used to building
from source for over a decade, I've found that I can often find the code
behind some behavior I'd like to tweak, and given good enough comments, I
can often create trivial patches to accomplish that tweak, even if it's
not exactly the code a real C coder would choose to use, which is exactly
what I've done here.  So now, unless some other atime option is
specified, my filesystems are all mounted noatime.  =:^)
Well, then I'll leave relatime on root fs and noatime on partition with snapshots, thanks.

Sincerely, Nazar Mokrynskyi
github.com/nazar-pc
Skype: nazar-pc
Diaspora: naza...@diaspora.mokrynskyi.com
Tox: 
A9D95C9AA5F7A3ED75D83D0292E22ACE84BA40E912185939414475AF28FD2B2A5C8EF5261249


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: Кріптографічний підпис S/MIME

Reply via email to