> > 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. 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. > > 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 -- 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
