Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:45:21 -0400 | From | Bob Copeland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 |
| |
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:37:31PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > I don't feel strongly either way, and Christoph's arguments against > fuse are mostly valid (although neither of them are serious).
I don't have hard numbers, but anecdotally my FUSE version is quite a bit less performant. That's no criticism of FUSE - I just haven't put the time into optimizing and adding various caches.
> There's one thing which makes fuse a slightly better candidate for > applications where the number of users is low: stability. Unless you > or your users test the hell out of your filesystem, there always a > chance that some bugs will remain.
Sure, though this FS won't see the same kind of use as ext2. Most users would just mount it, copy a bunch of files, then unmount it, and if that works then great.
It has at least seen some testing with fsx, though I had to turn off most of the checks since growing truncate is still unimplemented.
-- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com
| |