duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[Kenneth Loafman <question668404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #668404 on Duplicity changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/duplicity/+question/668404

Kenneth Loafman proposed the following answer:
duplicity does not modify atime, but it will modify mtime during a
restore.  You control FS atime mods at mount time.  Turn it off for SSDs if
you wish.

...Ken


On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:43 AM, edso <question668404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Question #668404 on Duplicity changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/duplicity/+question/668404
>
> edso proposed the following answer:
> On 30.04.2018 11:22, Tim wrote:
> > Tim is still having a problem:
> > Yes, atime is a filesystem feature.  But it is possible to
> > programatically read and store the original atime, then read the file,
> > then restore the original atime — using utimes() — such that atime
> > effectively does not change.  I am wondering if Duplicity 'preserves'
> > the original atime in such a manner.
>
> - just two more thoughts -
>
> 1.
> it looks like the approach above does write atime 2times to the fs, once
> during read, second during restoration of the old atime, which sounds
> counterproductive to your initial desire to cirumvent writing to your SSD.
>
> 2.
> a quick web search provided
>  https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16464228/python-get-
> last-reading-time-of-a-file
> where it is hinted that _relatime_ only does atime update if the stored
> atime is older than 24hs.
>
> ..ede/duply.net
>
> --
> You received this question notification because your team duplicity-team
> is an answer contact for Duplicity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team
> Post to     : duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

-- 
You received this question notification because your team duplicity-team
is an answer contact for Duplicity.