Am 2024-01-30 01:21, schrieb Warner Losh:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 2:31 PM Olivier Certner
wrote:
It also seems undesirable to add a sysctl to control a value that the
kernel doesn't use.
The kernel has to use it to guarantee some uniform behavior
irrespective of the mount being performed
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 2:31 PM Olivier Certner wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I've re-ordered a bit your mail to group some of my comments more
> logically.
>
> > I am not sure a sysctl is a good mechanism for setting the mount default,
> > especially if it is to be set via the kernel environment from
>
Hi Mike,
I've re-ordered a bit your mail to group some of my comments more logically.
> I am not sure a sysctl is a good mechanism for setting the mount default,
> especially if it is to be set via the kernel environment from
> /boot/loader.conf. That's an obscure place to find file system defau
Hi,
> Let me start out by indicating that some bike shed sessions
> (snip)
> Much of the overall usage is in that "additional attempted span".
Ok, so it seems I've misunderstood what you were saying or your intent in this
regard.
> I will adjust and deal with whatever happens
> overall. That is
On Jan 29, 2024, at 02:27, Olivier Certner wrote:
> Hi Mark,
Hello.
Let me start out by indicating that some bike shed sessions
are useful overall, even if not contributing to crucial
matters. I do not see withdrawing from continued participation
with new material as disqualifying of any of the
Not responding to a specific message, but following up on the thread:
I am not sure a sysctl is a good mechanism for setting the mount default,
especially if it is to be set via the kernel environment from
/boot/loader.conf. That's an obscure place to find file system defaults.
It also seems unde
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...
> Sever
Hi Mark,
> I'm confused: I go to the trouble to produce the same end result
> as your suggested change of defaults would produce, ending up
> with no recording of access times.
That's nice of you, but unfortunately that's missing the point. First, you
claimed to "seriously care" about access ti
Hi Alexander,
> ZFS by default has atime=on. It is our installer which sets atime=off in
> the ZFS properties. I was understanding Warners comment about changing
> ZFS in the sense of changing the ZFS code to have a default of
> atime=off.
>
> I agree with Warner that we should not do that. And
