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
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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). ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608262052.PAA01720>