On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:04:50PM +0100, Éric Piel wrote: > Matthew Garrett schreef: > > Ensure relatime updates atime at least once per day > > > > Allow atime to be updated once per day even with relatime. This lets > > utilities like tmpreaper (which delete files based on last access time) > > continue working. > : > Sorry, but I doubt it's a good idea. First, it breaks the simple > semantic of relatime (mtime > atime?), mixing it with a rather arbitrary > constant. Second, and most important, there are lots of workloads which > will be strongly affected by this modification. For instance, running > md5sum daily on the filesystem will cause a write for every file. Yes. And? I can't think of a single case where something could absolutely depend on the current relatime semantics, so altering them to more usefully match the atime semantics doesn't seem likely to cause any trouble. > I think that to solve the problem for your use case, it's better to use > a different approach such as mounting separately /tmp (with the atime > option). The use case in this case is the significant body of currently installed machines that don't have /tmp on a separate filesystem. In the very common setup of tmpreaper being used, the current relatime semantics will result in undesired data loss. I think the proposed alteration makes the behaviour of relatime massively more useful without any obvious drawbacks. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
