Re: noatime on ufs2

Hi Chris,

> Honestly!

Gosh...  This doesn't start well.

> Why do we have to upend decades of usage and understanding? Just 
> because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong.

Who says that exactly?  Separately, in case you haven't noticed yet, some things have changed in the past 50 years...

> Several weeks of replies confirm my initial 
> belief -- atime as it is currently implemented, is as it should be.

Several weeks?  The first mail was sent on January 7th, my first intervention about 'noatime' being the default was on the 9th and your mail is dated the 16th.  I would suggest that you revise your implementation of access times.

> I haven't seen anything in this thread that wouldn't be better placed in 
> tuning(7) or tunefs(8).

It's not really surprising since, given what you said before that, it seems that you haven't really paid attention to the messages exchanged.

> Security and forensics are good reasons to keep atime unchanged.

Having access times maintained may occasionally provide a bit more information, especially against script kiddies.  But if you think it's a reliable source of information, you're deluded.  See my response to Lyndon about the general problem with access times.  I also already talked about auditing's needs in my very first mail in this thread.

> Any discussion regarding changes to it's current behavior seems folly or bikeshedding.

About bike shedding, see my recent response to Mark, it applies to "folly" as well.

> Apologies for the "attitude".

Yeah.  Most prompts imagined by Poul-Henning Kamp in his bikeshed email would have applied perfectly to your message.

Thanks for the thought.

-- 
Olivier Certner