Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:51:00 -0300 From: "Marc G. Fournier" <freebsd@hub.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TDFS ... or other distributed file system technologies for FreeBSD? Message-ID: <45CCECCB7ECB612F504211F3@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <euberg$f1u$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <4746DA006C148BC0FF1241C6@ganymede.hub.org> <euberg$f1u$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 17:56:32 +0200 Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> Just curious, but what is the difference between FUSE and 'in kernel'? >> Reading the 'Performance' section on the web site, will it cut down the >> current 7 'steps' down to 3, or somewhere in between? > > If you mean context switches then yes, down to something like a normal file > system, 2 or 3. 'k ... now, you have a 'proof-of-concept' already, using FUSE ... how much more would be involved in the kernel module? I'm just wondering if it would be time better spent polishing off the FUSE implementation and pushing that for now, get ppl deploying it, testing it, etc ... and then work on the 'performance enhanced kernel module'? Then again, from the other side of the coin ... what are the chances that a kernel module would get into the main stream distribution vs the FUSE module? As a stop-gap, have you considered submitting a TDFS port, to give it a bit more profile? - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGCVmE4QvfyHIvDvMRAuxIAKDjuoBu82XojyBkZXFJeUGvYoW1WQCgpNgW AxBEFdET1WAZfl2t3WxFa20= =lQzV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45CCECCB7ECB612F504211F3>