From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:49:26 +0100 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 Message-ID: <20070805014926.400d0608@the-village.bc.nu> In-Reply-To: <200708050051.40758.ctpm@ist.utl.pt> References: <20070803123712.987126000@chello.nl> <46B4E161.9080100@garzik.org> <20070804224706.617500a0@the-village.bc.nu> <200708050051.40758.ctpm@ist.utl.pt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Claudio Martins Cc: Jeff Garzik , Ingo Molnar , =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , miklos@szeredi.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.de, dgc@sgi.com, tomoki.sekiyama.qu@hitachi.com, nikita@clusterfs.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, yingchao.zhou@gmail.com, richard@rsk.demon.co.uk, david@lang.hm List-ID: > Can you give examples of backup solutions that rely on atime being updated? > I can understand backup tools using mtime/ctime for incremental backups (like > tar + Amanda, etc), but I'm having trouble figuring out why someone would > want to use atime for that. HSM is the usual one, and to a large extent probably why Unix originally had atime. Basically migrating less used files away so as to keep the system disks tidy. Its not something usally found on desktop boxes so it doesn't in anyway argue against the distribution using noatime or relative atime, but on big server boxes it matters -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org