[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Disabling atime



Once upon a time, Robert Nichols <rnicholsNOSPAM comcast net> said:
> OK, I ran my own test doing an rpmbuild of a custom kernel.

This is being pitched as a "big gain for the desktop user".  How many
desktop users build a kernel?  Where is the gain in the typical desktop
usage pattern?

Someone said that Linux only follows POSIX where it makes sense, but
when has Linux followed POSIX for years and _then_ turned away?

How many users truly see a security gain (real difference, not
theoretical) out of SELinux?  Why isn't that turned off for that last
ounce of performance?  I've spent a lot more time having to figure out
what SELinux was doing and how to fix problems.

I use atime regularly, whether when using mutt or looking for what files
have been accessed (to decide what is being used, what can be deleted,
etc.).  Okay, so there's a hack to make mutt work; how does it affect
performance?  stat() is about as simple as it gets for checking when a
mailbox has been updated vs. when it was read.  What about bash (and the
other shells) that print a "you've got new mail" message?  What else is
there in the distribution that uses atime (has anyone checked)?

Sure, I can re-enable it on my systems, or I can go use something else
that doesn't randomly disable standard Unix behavior because it is
inconvenient.

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]