[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JlJE6-0004yZ-62@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:35:42 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: me@...copeland.com
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
> > 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists