On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Brian Buhrow wrote:
> I believe, after my discussions with the folks at Transarc, that the
> writeup claims that network bandwidth, as well as file server throughput
> would be adversely affected if AFS kept track of the atime field. I
> believe there was some belief that the ctime field might be accomodated in
> the future if enough people requested it. I put us down for being in favor
> of a ctime field.
Acutally, my question was regarding the mounting of the /vicep* partitions
on the server (sorry if I confused anyone).
I'd be in favor of the ctime field too :)
-rob
