Hi all,
We would need the same feature in our HPC cluster. I guess this is not an
unfrequent problem, I was wondering if you guys found an alternative solution.
Best
--
Filippo Stenico
Services and Support for Science IT (S3IT)
Office Y11 F 52
University of Zürich
Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-805
Am 16.12.19 um 11:43 schrieb Gregory Farnum:
> Yes, CephFS makes no attempt to maintain atime. If that's something
> you care about you should make a ticket and a case for why it's
> important. :)
Thanks for confirming :-).
For those following along and also interested, I created the ticket here:
Yes, CephFS makes no attempt to maintain atime. If that's something
you care about you should make a ticket and a case for why it's
important. :)
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 5:42 AM Oliver Freyermuth
wrote:
>
> Hi together,
>
> I had a look at ceph-fuse code and if I read it correctly, it does indeed
Hi together,
I had a look at ceph-fuse code and if I read it correctly, it does indeed not
seem to have the relatime behaviour since kernels 2.6.30 implemented.
Should I open a ticket on this?
Cheers,
Oliver
Am 02.12.19 um 14:31 schrieb Oliver Freyermuth:
> I was thinking about the be
On 2019-12-02 14:22, Nathan Fish wrote:
You may be thinking of "lazytime". "relatime" only updates atime when
updating mtime, to prevent being inconsistent.
I was thinking about the behaviour of relatime on kernels since 2.6.30 (quoting
mount(8)):
"Update inode access time
You may be thinking of "lazytime". "relatime" only updates atime when
updating mtime, to prevent being inconsistent.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Oliver Freyermuth
wrote:
>
> Dear Cephers,
>
> we are currently mounting CephFS with relatime, using the FUSE client
> (version 13.2.6):
>ceph-f
