"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only thing that bothers me about all of this is that bad
> applications will get this idea in their head that for "performance
> reasons" they should just use such options all the time.
>
> I know many folks turn off atime completely anyway because of the
> performance degradation (many GNU/Linux distributions certainly do).
instal a cron script with
find / -atime -100 -exec rm {} \+
and wait how long this continues ;-)
> I do wonder how this will affect POSIX compliance. At last check,
> atime was required for POSIX compliance. So does this mean that
> applications using the proposed functionality from the start of this
> thread, or the functionality proposed above (such as a flag to open)
> would somehow violate tests? Probably not, but I'm hoping someone more
> knowledgeable can speak to this (Don?).
As long as this is not the default behavior for the whole system and as long
as no program listed by POSIX does this by default, the behavior is not
influenced ba POSIX.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
