Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:34:57 +0100
From:      Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Cc:        Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Olivier Certner <olce@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: noatime on ufs2
Message-ID:  <CAFYkXj=xdDW38ehGqu6J=pwfmR0XTr=rOpPChEWNuFbidfDVUg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2136329.mxFCRLsXLg@ravel>
References:  <ZZqmmM-6f606bLJx@int21h> <1749331.ETpRK2a2Mi@ravel> <CANCZdfo8VyhSJEUQpnvXuoPq0dzUHDN1sj-_y=1FTqXR3FrSuA@mail.gmail.com> <2136329.mxFCRLsXLg@ravel>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 6:36=E2=80=AFPM Olivier Certner wrote:
> Both the examples above prompt some straight objections on the current us=
efulness of "atime".  First, unless you've disabled building the locate dat=
abase in cron (enabled by default, on a weekly basis), access times on dire=
ctories lose most of their usefulness.  Second, if using an IDS, I'm afraid=
 it's just game over.  And even if you think you are not, '460.pkg-checksum=
' at least is readily there to much complicate, or even prevent you from, g=
etting package usage information this way (it is enabled by default, and on=
 a daily basis).
>
> The general point here is that a single access time is inherently fragile=
 to interferences by multiple applications for multiple reasons.

I am reading this interesting discussion and please verify my general
understanding:

1. There is a request for change in core OS / FS mechanism of file
access time (atime) because of problem with mailing application?

2. Linux change of approach to atime that keeps its value only around
last 24h so we should also change it in FreeBSD?

3. "realtime" is the alternative solution to keep atime intact?

Why change well known standardized and widely used mechanism that is
here for decades?

If there is a problem with an application why change core OS/FS with
all possible negative consequences and not fix the application?

Wouldn't that break POSIX / backward compatiblity?

Thanks :-)
Tomek

--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFYkXj=xdDW38ehGqu6J=pwfmR0XTr=rOpPChEWNuFbidfDVUg>