On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:49:39AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > How about somethign like "This mount significantly reduces writes > > needed to update the inode's timestamps, especially mtime and actime. > > What is "actime" in the preceding line? Should it be "ctime"? Sorry, no, it should be "atime". > I find the wording of there a little confusing. Is the following > a correct rewrite: > > The advantage of MS_STRICTATIME | MS_LAZYTIME is that stat(2) > will return the correctly updated atime, but the atime updates > will be flushed to disk only when (1) the inode needs to be > updated for filesystem / data consistency reasons or (2) the > inode is pushed out of memory, or (3) the filesystem is > unmounted.) Yes, that's correct. The only other thing I might add is that in the case of a crash, the atime (or mtime) fields on disk might be out of date by at most 24 hours. - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
