This makes me think that /etc/daily should take similar steps,
whatever they turn out to be.
Yes, allthough my RAIDframe performance test results show that the effect
decreases with larger block sizes.
I can think of two ways to acheive this (each of which may be absurd given
better knowledge
I can think of two ways to acheive this (each of which may be absurd
given better knowledge of fs internals than I have): Either a
per-process switch disabling atime updates or a way to obtain a
read-only clone of a block device which can be mounted ro,noatime.
The latter will not work, at
On Jun 11, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Edgar Fuß wrote:
This makes me think that /etc/daily should take similar steps,
whatever they turn out to be.
Yes, allthough my RAIDframe performance test results show that the effect
decreases with larger block sizes.
I can think of two ways to acheive this
No, snapshots are supported in 6.0.
Ah, great!
Someone should adjust the ffsconfig(8) man page, then:
$ man fssconfig | tail -5
BUGS
The fss(4) driver is experimental. Be sure you have a backup before you
use it.
NetBSD 6.0_BETAJanuary 31, 2005NetBSD
On Jun 11, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Edgar Fuß wrote:
No, snapshots are supported in 6.0.
Ah, great!
Someone should adjust the ffsconfig(8) man page, then:
$ man fssconfig | tail -5
BUGS
The fss(4) driver is experimental. Be sure you have a backup before you
use it.
NetBSD 6.0_BETA
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:17:06PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
Taking a file system external snapshot should be a quick task
That means a ffsconfig(8) with the backup argument pointing to a
different file system?
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in this
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in this case. The stream of atime updates is still happening on the
underlying filesystem, and that is still where you will be doing almost
all of your reads from.
My intent was to mount the snapshot ro,noatime and
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:52:27PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in this case. The stream of atime updates is still happening on the
underlying filesystem, and that is still where you will be doing almost
all of your reads
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:52:27PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in this case. The stream of atime updates is still happening on the
underlying filesystem, and that is still
On Jun 11, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:18:17PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:52:27PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
Yes, but I have to question whether and why it would improve performance
in
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
How about using fss for it instead.
Well, the point is not that I primarily don't want the atimes to reflect
the backup access. I primarily want to save the time spent on the update.
A find is aproximately twice as fast with
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:37:06AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Matthias Kretschmer wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:42:27PM +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
How about using fss for it instead.
1. fss is still marked experimental.
oh, I have overlooked that.
2. does fss work
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:56:26PM +0200, Matthias Kretschmer wrote:
How about using fss for it instead.
1. fss is still marked experimental.
oh, I have overlooked that.
I'm not sure that should stop you though. Or the marking should be
removed. People use it, it seems to work, it's been
How about using fss for it instead.
Well, the point is not that I primarily don't want the atimes to reflect
the backup access. I primarily want to save the time spent on the update.
A find is aproximately twice as fast with noatime.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
How about using fss for it instead.
1. fss is still marked experimental.
oh, I have overlooked that.
2. does fss work with WAPL at all?
I don't know that.
It seems to work for me! All my FS are WAPBL-enabled, and I always
use backup -X for
Walking a directory tree (e.g. during a backup) unnecessarily updates atimes.
Mounting -o noatime is not an option because the atime updates are needed
elsewhere.
Is there an option (overlay mount or such) to present a file system noatime
(or even read-only) to one process (or at one mount point)
A null mount should do the job and this fstab entry should work:
/path/to/orig /path/to/ovarlay null ro,noatime
--
Juergen Hannken-Illjes - hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de - TU Braunschweig (Germany)
On May 31, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Edgar Fuß wrote:
Walking a directory tree (e.g. during a
A null mount should do the job and this fstab entry should work:
/path/to/orig /path/to/ov[e]rlay null ro,noatime
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. I get
mount_null: -o atime: option not supported
(yes, that's atime, not noatime).
Just mounting ro doesn't seem to stop the atime
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:23:12PM +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
A null mount should do the job and this fstab entry should work:
/path/to/orig /path/to/ov[e]rlay null ro,noatime
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. I get
mount_null: -o atime: option not supported
(yes, that's atime,
I would think that the atime updates are generated by
mount_null/nullfs when the corresponding file in the null-mount
is accessed and the nullfs has to access the original file.
Yes, probably.
How about using fss for it instead.
1. fss is still marked experimental.
2. does fss work with WAPL
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:42:27PM +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
How about using fss for it instead.
1. fss is still marked experimental.
oh, I have overlooked that.
2. does fss work with WAPL at all?
I don't know that.
Another idea is, if lvm is considered stable, to create a low-level
snapshot
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Matthias Kretschmer wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:42:27PM +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
How about using fss for it instead.
1. fss is still marked experimental.
oh, I have overlooked that.
2. does fss work with WAPL at all?
I don't know that.
It seems to work for me!
22 matches
Mail list logo
