Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

[Bob Copeland]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/