Re: noatime on ufs2

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 16:13:06 -0800
Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 14, 2024, at 14:27, Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 10:53:34 -0800
> > Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Jan 14, 2024, at 08:39, Olivier Certner <olce@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi Mark,
> >>> 
> >>>> I never use atime, always noatime, for UFS. That said, I'd never propose
> >>>> changing the long standing defaults for commands and calls.
> >>> 
> >>> With this mail, you're giving more detailed objections on the social/political aspects of the proposed changed, or as we usually say more simply, POLA.
> >>> 
> >>> All your points are already largely weakened by the fact that, to wrap-up in a single sentence at the risk of being slightly caricatural (but then see my other mails), nobody really seems to care seriously about access times.
> >> 
> >> I seriously care about having a lack of access times. Yet, I've no
> >> objection to needing to be explicit about it in commands and
> >> subroutine interfaces, given the long standing interfaces (defaults).
> >> It would be different if I could not achieve the lack of access
> >> times. That defaults do not block having the desired settings makes
> >> the change optional, not technically required. The defaults are,
> >> thus, primarily social/political aspects of interfaces, not
> >> technical requirements to make things work.
> >> 
> >> Given that, I explicitly claim that avoiding POLA at this late stage
> >> is my preference for the priority of competing considerations. I
> >> make no claim of knowing the majority view of the tradeoffs. I would
> >> claim that, if the majority is not by just some marginal amount,
> >> contradicting that majority view for this would not be appropriate.
> >> (Again: the social/political aspects.)
> >> 
> >> And, hopefully, this is my last contribution to this particular
> >> bike shed.
> >> 
> >> ===
> >> Mark Millard
> >> marklmi at yahoo.com
> > 
> > I would prefer violating POLA here, with, for example, forcing admins
> > to choose explicitly with installer menu
> 
> I've not reported any objection to bsdinstall having explicit
> choices required in its menus. Nor to changing how, say,
> official snapshots are generated (so long as well notified
> and documented). If my wording was unclear on that, I'm sorry.
> 
> My focus was on things like mount command notation and
> /etc/fstab notation (that tracks mount defaults) or subroutine
> interface equivalents of such things and changing their
> behavior without requiring changing the notation already in
> place in various files.
> 
> (I've tried to word the above without making new points,
> avoiding contributing more to the bike shed material.)
> 
> >  Choose whether you need to retain last file access time or not:
> >    1: Don't keep    (current default)
> >    2: Keep last one (default before 15.0)
> > 
> > by hand, or via installer configuration or additional scripts.
> > Of course, existing installations should not be affected.
> > 
> 
> 
> ===
> Mark Millard
> marklmi at yahoo.com

So you mean changing behaviour of mount[_*] to default to noatime, in
conjunction with configuration in /etc/fstab to default to noatime,
right?
So if changes are done as such, if anyone want atime active, add
"-o atime" in mount[_*] command and/or "[,]atime" in /etc/fstab? 

-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>