Re: atime

From: Jim Bauer (jfbauer@home.com)
Date: Tue May 02 2000 - 21:31:19 EST

Next message: Ricky Beam: "Re: Does the list reject mails with attachments?"
Previous message: Paul Barton-Davis: "Re: Simulating slower processor."
In reply to: Bruce Janson: "atime"
Next in thread: Matti Aarnio: "Re: atime"
Reply: Matti Aarnio: "Re: atime"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

bruce@staff.cs.usyd.edu.au (Bruce Janson) wrote:
>Maintenance of the traditional unix atime field turns read-like
>operations into write-like operations. For sophisticated network
>file systems that maintain a coherent distributed view, this
>hurts performance.
>
>Which popular/essential/useful user-level Linux applications
>break when atime is disabled (say, pegged to zero)?

Programs that compare atime to mtime to see if more data has
been added to the file but not yet read. Do some of the "new mail"
checkers use this? finger seems to.

-- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Ricky Beam: "Re: Does the list reject mails with attachments?"
Previous message: Paul Barton-Davis: "Re: Simulating slower processor."
In reply to: Bruce Janson: "atime"
Next in thread: Matti Aarnio: "Re: atime"
Reply: Matti Aarnio: "Re: atime"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST