From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 29 16:57:27 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03C616A41C for ; Sun, 29 May 2005 16:57:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from postfix4-2.free.fr (postfix4-2.free.fr [213.228.0.176]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A222C43D1D for ; Sun, 29 May 2005 16:57:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by postfix4-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2BD31D93C; Sun, 29 May 2005 18:57:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 56123407E; Sun, 29 May 2005 18:57:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 18:57:19 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: Marc Olzheim Message-ID: <20050529165719.GF54337@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <1117139065.82793.20.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> <20050527091750.GB91258@stack.nl> <1117195655.88498.9.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> <20050527131014.GA93850@stack.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050527131014.GA93850@stack.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: Ken Smith , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Modifying file access time upon exec... X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 16:57:27 -0000 Hi Marc, Ken, > > I'm not sure why you say NFS filesystems can't be mounted with noatime. > > No, I'm saying that there are filesystems you wouldn't want to mount > with noatime (/tmp, /var/tmp, /var/mail, /var/spool/*) because some > software depends on the atime being adjusted. I thought that, according to the goal of this patch, the "noatime" option you were talking about would be in fact a "noatime-on-exec" option. Access time would be still updated on other cases. Am I wrong ? Best regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >