linux-ext4 - Re: Porting Zfs features to ext2/3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:40:55 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Anopolsky <erpo41@...il.com>
Cc:	postrishi <postrishi@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Porting Zfs features to ext2/3

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:15:59PM -0600, Eric Anopolsky wrote:
> It's true that ZFS on FUSE performance isn't all it could be right now.
> However, ZFS on FUSE is currently not taking advantage of mechanisms
> FUSE provides to improve performance. For an example of what can be
> achieved, check out http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html .

Yes... and take a look at the metadata operations numbers.  FUSE can
do things to accellerate bulk read/write, but metadata-intensive
operations will (I suspect) always be slow.  I also question whether
the FUSE implementation will have the safety that has always been the
Raison d'être of ZFS.  Have you or the ZFS/FUSE developers done tests
where you are writing to the filesystem, and then someone pulls the
plug on the fileserver while ZFS is writing?  Does the filesystem
recovery cleanly from such a scenario?

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html