| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:45:21 -0400 From: Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com> To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> Cc: 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 On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:37:31PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > 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. > 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. It has at least seen some testing with fsx, though I had to turn off most of the checks since growing truncate is still unimplemented. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com -- 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