Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:45:04 +0200 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing the fusefs kernel module? Message-ID: <20101028184504.GB46314@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimVWaRzhuCDHM-F_%2ByYNF9ObqViPSzQ51M0wQRA@mail.gmail.com> References: <ia4qnl$bgl$1@dough.gmane.org> <20101025211904.GM2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20101026205801.GA39716@zim.MIT.EDU> <D1BAEBBF-4CD4-4C2A-A877-B86D6322E6C7@samsco.org> <AANLkTikR2YuLA-SGc2HKNp94BEBFF0%2BhO2ye-=qJVnwD@mail.gmail.com> <4CC92D1B.5010701@entel.upc.edu> <AANLkTimVWaRzhuCDHM-F_%2ByYNF9ObqViPSzQ51M0wQRA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 28.10.2010 at 12:19:52 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > 2010/10/28 Gustau Pérez <gperez@entel.upc.edu>: > > > The point is, do we stick with fuse or do we switch to puffs ? What is > > Basically my vote goes to fuse for these reasons: > > * More file systems are developed for fuse > * It's more popular both among the users and 3d party software > developers (you mentioned Gnome) > * It's better performing, at least in theory, because puffs was not > originally written for a multi-threaded kernel (lots of serialization) I was under the impression, there's a library for puffs (called re-fuse?!?) which would provide API compatible shims for FUSE, rendering your first argument invalid. Or am I wrong? Uli
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101028184504.GB46314>