From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 27 17:51:01 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0EE16A403 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:51:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DDB13C4D5 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:51:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFFE85C8FD; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:50:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 58733-08; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:50:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-89-241-126.eastlink.ca [24.89.241.126]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D544885C8E8; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:50:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA56E35D91; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:51:00 -0300 (ADT) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:51:00 -0300 From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Ivan Voras , freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <45CCECCB7ECB612F504211F3@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: References: <4746DA006C148BC0FF1241C6@ganymede.hub.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Subject: Re: TDFS ... or other distributed file system technologies for FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:51:01 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 17:56:32 +0200 Ivan Voras 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-----