> > I don't feel strongly either way, and Christoph's arguments against
quoted text
> > 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.

quoted text
> > 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
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/