Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DEF650405 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:30:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69021-05-6 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:30:44 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.30]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE30650209 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:30:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so330760ywj.73 for ; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:30:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Nb8PBruB62a095Wa0UMCHF9fv2jZNRW/k/YTK8hzNks=; b=BSCeWKGCekIDzDMHDG0Xa66BixKl6C+wOPWB2fYXurH1DN+XOorTWkZGH+oDm+32jZ m/KRQA24u3y/9OxpZD5z92Ok+GW0KvtTboHxj/BukKF4e3NfKxMmwL9fJOK3zaUCIYoz y8lrNNVNdotVCLl5/pGOgWgJkOwbPa6s8yShk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=k16lUgSO6559m3qnGNWNPqYqkEjHY64NTrQCjsDlr9tKLLbxbGiJMDa07UmKYbPlwY PpfPMNbMe+/h1ycCXZfe1A5wz5JVI+Wbit6nglODAQSY5ZfxlSO1tiFHTF2HK8vwwQlQ 4iOtsAZcphkt15RQ5wDTPBnsBwDuGnLsCn02w= Received: by 10.142.174.18 with SMTP id w18mr639166wfe.325.1218144613405; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.165.13 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:30:13 -0600 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "Andrej Ricnik-Bay" Subject: Re: file system and raid performance Cc: "Mark Wong" , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <70c01d1d0808042154u7b78d988vac1e461a93b0ba10@mail.gmail.com> <70c01d1d0808050800j7196922bt2c4b43ba09a19099@mail.gmail.com> <4898E80A.3020809@paradise.net.nz> <489A3B75.6060004@paradise.net.nz> <489AC2F0.9050907@paradise.net.nz> <489ACC90.9030401@sime.com> <70c01d1d0808071236u36fe5002w833582b036d952e8@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200808/54 X-Sequence-Number: 30935 On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote: > To me it still boggles the mind that noatime should actually slow down > activities on ANY file-system ... has someone got an explanation for > that kind of behaviour? As far as I'm concerned this means that even > to any read I'll add the overhead of a write - most likely in a disk-location > slightly off of the position that I read the data ... how would that speed > the process up on average? noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to slow down performance?