Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 16:50:44 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.dk.tfs.com> To: dg@root.com Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another POSIX access timestamp pessimization Message-ID: <3566.851788244@critter.dk.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Dec 1996 07:00:14 PST." <199612281500.HAA01066@root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199612281500.HAA01066@root.com>, David Greenman writes: >>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 mount option ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Power and ignorance is a disgusting cocktail.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3566.851788244>