On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:49:35PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Erm ... there's nothing wrong with having one pipe per CPU. But pipes > > being non-seekable means that ZUFS can only handle synchronous I/Os. > > If you want to have a network backend, then you'd only be able to have > > one outstanding network request per pipe, which is really going to suck > > for bandwidth. > > I guess ZUFS is mostly about fast synchronous access (please correct > me if I'm wrong). Not sure that model fits network filesystems, where > performance of caching will dominate real life performance. I'm sure that's Boaz's use case ;-) But if we're introducing a replacement for FUSE, let's make it better than FUSE, not just specialised to Boaz's use case. Also, networks aren't necessarily slow; some of us live in a world where the other end-point on the "network" is *usually* the hypervisor, or a different guest on the same piece of physical hardware. Not to mention that 400Gbps ethernet is almost upon us (standard approved four months ago) and PCIe Gen 4 is only 256Gbps with a x16 link.
