On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 08:16:16AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > Also, slightly OT, but atimes are not where the real benefit is here for > most people. No sane software other than mutt uses atimes (and mutt's use > of them is not sane, but that's a different argument)
Right. There are two competing forks of mutt: neomutt and vanilla: https://github.com/neomutt/neomutt/commit/816095bfdb72caafd8845e8fb28cbc8c6afc114f https://gitlab.com/dops/mutt/commit/489a1c394c29e4b12b705b62da413f322406326f So this has already been taken care of. > so pretty much everyone who wants to avoid the overhead from them can just > use the `noatime` mount option. atime updates (including relatime) are bad not only for performance, they also explode disk size used by snapshots (btrfs, LVM, ...) -- to the tune of ~5% per snapshot for some non-crafted loads. And, are bad for media with low write endurance (SD cards, as used by most SoCs). Thus, atime needs to die. > The real benefit for most people is with mtimes, for which there is no > other way to limit the impact they have on performance. With btrfs, any write already triggers metadata update (except nocow), thus there's little benefit of lazytime for mtimes. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition: ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal [Mt3:16-17] ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs [Mt14:17-20, Mt15:34-37] ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ • use glitches to walk on water [Mt14:25-26]
