|
|
Posted by Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) on 08/09/06 02:18
"Bjψrn Augestad" <bjorn.augestad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eba4n9$fba$1@bat-news01.banetele.basefarm.net...
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> > "boa" <boasema@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:mq-dnQaIHbQLBUrZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
> >
> >>While we're at it, any thoughts on the registry setting
> >>NTFSDisableLastAccessUpdate?
> >>
> >
> >
> > None other than you're probably over thinking the problem.
> >
> > Seriously, any performance gains, etc. you're almost certainly better
off
> > looknig elsewhere.
> >
>
> Sorry if I've given you the impression that we're not looking elsewhere.
> Right now we are 5 guys rewriting queries and client applications, as
> well as adding memory, servers, more spindles and everything else that
> may improve performance, and the profiler and dta runs 24/7(Almost...).
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I enjoy knowing these things, and if MSFT added
> NTFSDisableLastAccessUpdate(aka unix noatime) I presume they did it for
> a reason. It would be nice to know that reason ;-)
I can definitely understand curiousity. :-)
My point is simply that any performance gains here are probably miniscule
compared to what you can make elsewhere.
>
> Bjψrn
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Bjψrn
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >
> >
> >
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|