Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> 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 where you will be doing almost >> > all of your reads from. >> >> My intent was to mount the snapshot ro,noatime and operate on that. >> Am I again missing something stupid? You should only need ro; it doesn't make sense to talk about atime updates or not when you aren't writing to the underlying block device. > Hm. No, I don't think so. I wonder -- will the snapshot management code > cause the resulting snapshot to be in a consistent state so access through > the filesystem is safe? I would say that it should or it's a bug; it seems the whole point of snapshots is to get a consistent view of a filesystem. Given that the normal use case seems to be things like snapshot/dump/drop-snapshot, I would think that if it were buggy there's a decent chance there would have been complaints by now.
Attachment:
pgpL4r5WyAph9.pgp
Description: PGP signature