lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
From
Date
> > I'm not complaining about anything.  Who has?
> >
> > As the filesystem is for occasional, non-performance-sensitive use
> > by a very small number of people, doing it via FUSE sounds like an
> > all-round more practical approach. This has nothing to do with quality of
> > implementation at all.
>
> It's a stupid idea. Moving a simple block based filesystem means it's
> more complicated, less efficient because of the additional context
> switches and harder to use because you need additional userspace
> packages and need to setup fuse.
>
> We made writing block based filesystems trivial in the kernel to grow
> more support for filesystems like this one.

I don't feel strongly either way, and Christoph's arguments against
fuse are mostly valid (although neither of them are serious).

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. These rarely bring down the whole
system, but it usually requires a reboot to let you continue using the
Oopsing fs.

Miklos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-13 12:41    [W:0.630 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site