Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:10:14 +0300
From: Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org>
To: Vlad <vladc6@yahoo.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Noatime vs relatime
Message-ID: <20070810151014.GT6372@mea-ext.zmailer.org>
References: <233939.75965.qm@web54403.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <233939.75965.qm@web54403.mail.yahoo.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1333
Lines: 36

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:26:46AM -0700, Vlad wrote:
... 
> "Warning: Atime will be disabled by default in future kernel versions,
> but you will still be able to turn it on when configuring the kernel."
> 
> This should give a heads-up to the 0.001% of people who still use
> atime so that they know to customize this option or start using modern
> file-monitoring techniques like inotify.

NO for two reasons:
  - atime semantics are just fine in server environments
  - inotify IS NOT scalable to millions of files, nor
    to situations where we want to check alteration weeks
    or months after the fact

In reality I would perhaps prefer mount-behaviour being altered
from 'by default do atime' to 'by default do noatime.

There MUST be an easy way to tell system that "yes, I want to track
last accesstime."


I did recently an embedded Linux PC system where the entire
system disk is a single Compact Flash -card.  I tried to play
with  noatime  option, but the system still kept writing things,
and thus I had to do full and somewhat drastic  read-only.


> Vlad

/Matti Aarnio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/