On 06/08/2013 04:13 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
Yes, but none of these results show the .12s time that your first
noatime test run showed in your original post. If you are now saying
that atime is faster than noatime by about .005 to .010s, then these
results seem to show that. But your original post was from .019 to .12,
or a difference of .10+s. That was cache load time, not just the
syscall difference.
Hmm, someone is misreading the results.
I've reread multiple times, and I see a difference of 12s, not .12s.
---> real 0m12.645s
---> user 0m0.003s
---> sys 0m0.159s
And 12 seconds (elapsed, with 0.159s system) means 12s/5000=2.4ms
which could only be explained with the auditing system doing fsync
calls on its log files.
--
Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it