Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761664AbXHJW7T (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:59:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752095AbXHJW7G (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:59:06 -0400 Received: from smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl ([213.51.146.201]:39922 "EHLO smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752807AbXHJW7F (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:59:05 -0400 Message-ID: <46BCECED.7050002@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:55:41 +0200 From: Rene Herman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matti Aarnio CC: Vlad , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Noatime vs relatime References: <233939.75965.qm@web54403.mail.yahoo.com> <20070810151014.GT6372@mea-ext.zmailer.org> In-Reply-To: <20070810151014.GT6372@mea-ext.zmailer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1766 Lines: 43 On 08/10/2007 05:10 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote: > 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. I must say I've been wondering about relatime a bit as well. Are there actually users who do really want atime, but not badly enough to want real atime? I've been running with noatime for years now and do not plan on changing that so have been shrugging this entire discussion off with "no care of mine", but whose care _is_ it? > There MUST be an easy way to tell system that "yes, I want to track > last accesstime." mount -o atime. Or as far as I'm concerned, keep the default as posixly compliant as one wants and teach people and distributions to mount "noatime" as I hear some have already been doing. I may be wrong, but to me, relatime sounds like compromising for the sake of compromising... Rene. - 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/