From owner-freebsd-bugs  Sat Dec 28 07:00:22 1996
Return-Path: <owner-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id HAA14314
          for bugs-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 07:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id HAA14309
          for <bugs@freebsd.org>; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 07:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.7.6/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA01066; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 07:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199612281500.HAA01066@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: bugs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: another POSIX access timestamp pessimization 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 29 Dec 1996 01:17:04 +1100."
             <199612281417.BAA20220@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 07:00:14 -0800
Sender: owner-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>POSIX says that "Upon successful completion, the exec functions shall
>mark for update the st_atime field of the file".  Not content with

   In my opinion, "tough". This is one part of POSIX that I'm not interested
in being compatible with since the cost is too great. It may not be much of
an issue at exec time, but the disk I/O caused by the update of the access
time that occurs later is extremely expensive.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project