Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 15:52:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, nate@mt.sri.com, michaelv@mindbender.serv.net, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone using ccd (FreeBSD disk striper) for news Message-ID: <199608262052.PAA01720@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199608262017.OAA20405@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Aug 26, 96 02:17:54 pm
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > Phahff. Screw POSIX compliancy if it's an optional brokenness and it makes > > life better. DG has mentioned that it's a real problem for him on wcarchive > > in the past, too... and there are some of us who understand the need for > > standards compliance but also appreciate that there are times that the rules > > can be safely bent. :-) > > UnionFS would be a *really* good solution in this case. You'd allow > someone to have 'read/write' priviledges to the FS (inn, maintainers, > etc..), but then re-mount it somewhere else read-only, thus disabling > ATIME writes and only allowing read-only FS's. I don't know about UnionFS... but in the name of thoroughness let me go build a kernel.. Damn. Instant crash. The comments in LINT do mention that it is buggy. > The best of both worlds. Otherwise, I think if you added a flag to the > FS to disable ATIME updates for specific filesystems you might get DG to > add it. (hint hint! ;) We discussed it in the past, both DG and I have come up with implementations that we were not happy with for one reason or another (me, my solution was probably naive because I have zippo familiarity with FFS internals, DG's solution probably had technical correctness on it's side but for some reason didn't work in all cases, or something like that). ... JGhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608262052.PAA01720>