julian67 wrote:There's no negative consequence unless you have applications that depend on access times to work. This is unlikely on a server and on your desktop is not even worth worrying about.
I've read some stuff and indeed it has no use most of the time. So I thought, what the hell ... let's try it and if I feel uncomfortable about it for some reason, it's easily reversed.
And I have to say that the boot process seems to have speed up considerably
http://tinyurl.com/wurfw from
Lou's guide has quite some interesting info about atime too.
MeanDean wrote:Actually, there was a discussion not long ago about it and I think the agreement was that it is truly a relic. I think it was concluded that there was one (or maybe two) software packages that expected atime to be used. They were obscure packages if I remember correctly. I have used noatime for about a year now - no problems here.
Good to have conformation from another experienced user
And it made me do the obvious thing (which I hadn't), search this forum about it and already found some interesting stuff. Thanks!
Among those was
this post from eyelid about mlocate (which didn't get answered):
instead of re-reading all the contents of all directories each time the database is updated, mlocate keeps timestamp information in
its database and can know if the contents of a directory changed without reading them again. This makes updates much faster and less
demanding on the hard drive. This feature is only found in mlocate.
Since mlocate is the replacement of locate (on my system) I like to make sure noatime doesn't affect mlocate's behavior. It seems to look for write times. Will that still be updated regardless of noatime and hence keep mlocate working properly?
On to reading more about this stuff.
LOL, I feel like a kid in a candy shop
