Re: btrfs: poor performance on deleting many large files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:06:45 +0100 as
excerpted:

> And additionally, allow people to mount subvols with different
> noatime/relatime/atime settings (unless that's already working)... that
> way, they could enable it for things where they want/need it,... and
> disable it where not.

AFAIK, per-subvolume *atime mounts should already be working.  The *atime 
mount options are filesystem-generic (aka Linux vfs level), and while I 
my own use-case doesn't involve subvolumes, the wiki says they should be 
working (wrapped link I'm not bothering to jump thru the hoops to 
properly unwrap):

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ
#Can_I_mount_subvolumes_with_different_mount_options.3F

So while personally untested, per-subvolume *atime mount options /should/ 
"just work".

Meanwhile, I've simply grown to hate atime as an inefficient and mostly 
useless drain on resources, so I pretty much just noatime everything, the 
reason I decided to bother patching my kernel to make that the default, 
instead of having yet another option I use everywhere anyway, clogging up 
the options field in my fstab.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux