[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070805072805.GB4414@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 09:28:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Claudio Martins <ctpm@....utl.pt>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de,
dgc@....com, tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com, nikita@...sterfs.com,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no, yingchao.zhou@...il.com,
richard@....demon.co.uk, david@...g.hm
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > Can you give examples of backup solutions that rely on atime being
> > updated? I can understand backup tools using mtime/ctime for
> > incremental backups (like tar + Amanda, etc), but I'm having trouble
> > figuring out why someone would want to use atime for that.
>
> HSM is the usual one, and to a large extent probably why Unix
> originally had atime. Basically migrating less used files away so as
> to keep the system disks tidy.
atime is used as a _hint_, at most and HSM sure works just fine on an
atime-incapable filesystem too. So it's the same deal as "add user_xattr
mount option to the filesystem to make Beagle index faster". It's now:
"if you use HSM storage add the atime mount option to make it slightly
more intelligent. Expect huge IO slowdowns though."
The only remotely valid compatibility argument would be Mutt - but even
that handles it just fine. (we broke way more software via noexec)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists