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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 behaviour of relatime on kernels since 2.6.30 > > (quoting mount(8)): > > -------------------- > > "Update inode access times relative to modify or change time. Access time > > is only updated if the previous access time was earlier than the current > > modify or change time. (Similar to > > noatime, but it doesn't break mutt or other applications that need to know > > if a file has been read since the last time it was modified.) > > > > Since Linux 2.6.30, the kernel defaults to the behavior provided by this > > option (unless noatime was specified), > > and the strictatime option is required to obtain traditional semantics. > > In addition, since > > Linux 2.6.30, the file's last access time is always updated if it is more > > than 1 day old." > > -------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
