Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:12:50 +0300 (EEST) | From | Szabolcs Szakacsits <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3 |
| |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > I consider this as a benefit for FUSE file systems. An unloadable kernel > > module results reboot which is much more intrusive. > > Kernel modules don't become "unloadable" unless there is a bug.
That's exactly what I meant. The majority of the system crashes are due to kernel drivers.
> The "kill -9" can happen inadvertently even without any bugs in the FUSE > or the FUSE-fs.
Not really. And if so then distros solve it, as some of them already did (e.g. during system shutdown).
> > The OOM killer can be configured and if the fs still uses too much memory > > then probably it's better to be killed/restarted with journaling support. > > The important here would be the kernel finally fixing the non-sync behavior > > when it clams to do so (see recent kernel threads). > > You don't get the point. Any process in the system can be using too much > memory and trigger the OOM killer even when the FS is behaving just fine...
Actually you missed when I wrote "the OOM killer can be configured".
FUSE is a new thing which sometimes requires non-conventional thinking and minor adjustments here and there. These works are ongoing for some years now.
> I never said it was a FUSE problem! It is a ntfsmount/ntfs-3g problem. At > least a few years ago someone was trying to use ntfsmount (or ntfs-3g I can't > remember if you had already forked it then) on a 32MiB RAM embedded ARM box > and he was running OOM when trying to list directories due to the ntfs/fuse > implementation. In the kernel ntfs driver that does not happen.
Listing a directory with over 100k files can be still an ENOMEM problem using 32 MB RAM but of course it's solvable. Nobody was interested so far.
Szaka
-- NTFS-3G: http://ntfs-3g.org
| |