From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 2 01:04:26 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E27E1106566C for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 01:04:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dpd@bitgravity.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6838FC12 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 01:04:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iadj38 with SMTP id j38so35914734iad.13 for ; Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.160.199 with SMTP id xm7mr56201265igb.24.1325466266166; Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from 173-13-188-41-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (173-13-188-41-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.13.188.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pb6sm70607628igc.5.2012.01.01.17.04.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:04:25 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "David P. Discher" In-Reply-To: <20111230090256.GA6796@reks> Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 17:04:23 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <87E5C7D5-2D73-4A42-B871-8B27448B0DD9@bitgravity.com> <20111229215125.GA8539@reks> <20111230090256.GA6796@reks> To: Gleb Kurtsou X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Johannes Totz Subject: Re: fusefs broken on 8-stable? 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: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 01:04:27 -0000 On Dec 30, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Gleb Kurtsou wrote: > On (29/12/2011 14:06), David P Discher wrote: >> Is this a straight dump for p4 ? =20 >>=20 >> Earlier this week, I checked out = //depot/projects/soc2011/ilya_fuse/... out of p4. But only used the = kmod, not the libs. Unfortunately, it was 10x slower than the 0.3.9 = version currently in the ports tree. I never got it to the same point = ... after a few days, had only written about 6-10GB of data. >=20 > It's the same as p4 (+ few minor tweaks). fuse-0.4 is more strict on > resizing files which is very likely to be slow for encrypted file > system (encfs). Try setting sysctl vfs.fuse.sync_resize=3D0. Got this port started, however its still around 10-60x slower than the = 0.3.9 version in the ports tree. vfs.fuse.sync_resize seemed to make no = difference. Granted this is a custom fusefs that I'm comparing, based = off of bbfs (http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer/fuse-tutorial/). >=20 > I don't know all the details but there was memory leak and arbitrary > memory corruption in old fuse. It's believed to be fixed in fuse-0.4. = My > guess you are hitting the same bug. I've compared the functions in the stack the trace, and have found no = change between 0.4.4 and 0.3.9. If you (or anyone else on the list) = knows what patches are the memory leak and corruption fixes are - I'd = like to attempt to back port them into 0.3.9. I'd like the stability = and speed.=20 --- David P. Discher dpd@bitgravity.com * AIM: bgDavidDPD BITGRAVITY * http://www.bitgravity.com