lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
    From
    Date
    > > 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.

    The worst I/O performance problems should be gone by 2.6.26.
    Otherwise there shouldn't be a need to add optimizations to the
    userspace code. The kernel caches take care of that, just like for a
    kernel filesystem.

    > > 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.

    Exactly. Which means, that bugs which happen only in special
    circumstances don't surface early and cause more headaches later.

    Miklos


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-14 09:39    [W:2.464 / U:0.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site