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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
