On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:10 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 07:19:52AM -0400, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > This sounds very useful. > > > > Why does it have to be a new special-purpose Linux virtual file? > > Why not FUSE, which is meant for this purpose? > > Those are things that you should explain when you are proposing a new > > filesystem, > > but I will answer for you - because FUSE page fault will incur high > > latency also after > > blocks are locally available in your backend store. Right? > > From the documentation file in the first patch: > > +Why isn't incremental-fs implemented via FUSE? > +---------------------------------------------- > +TLDR: FUSE-based filesystems add 20-80% of performance overhead for target > +scenarios, and increase power use on mobile beyond acceptable limit > +for widespread deployment. A custom kernel filesystem is the way to overcome > +these limitations. > + > Fair enough. I didn't think FUSE could be an alternative as-is. I am familiar with USENIX paper. The question is if we need to re-intent the wheel or try to improve the wheel. Thanks, Amir.
