User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Atime and btrfs: a bad combination?

Atime and btrfs: a bad combination?

Posted Jun 5, 2012 11:42 UTC (Tue) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964)
In reply to: Atime and btrfs: a bad combination? by jzbiciak
Parent article: Atime and btrfs: a bad combination?

No atime is NOT broken!!
The problem is Filesystem Designers not implementing it well.

Rather than whinge about it on LKML (Kernel developers & casual enthusiasts aren't the ppl who find atimes useful) implementing atime's better ought to be the focus of discussion. Ppl think about advanced features like snap-shotting and ignore the basic POSIX requirements.

atime doesn't need synchronous update guarantees, in real use the fuzzy relatime (better 23hr min update than 24, to be predictable on daily jobs) would likely be adequate. If your FS can't stand some inode info updates, during reading, then it is what is broken, not the spec.


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds