From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 28 22:19:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360F11065674; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:19:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivoras@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79278FC27; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk2 with SMTP id 2so1384398qyk.13 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:19:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=l8CguAfySEUmyswq7/c0QtzBSvx1W2JZaQTlStSmpz0=; b=uMonlFHOiO8tKkfMfQ+Hp8aKx7rvyfbYCpKaD1tTu0M1xj+Yohy59cPrW42cwEf8HL ox4qS+Ct5obMBWHK8dSb7b6vCgUpFD9W0v7ZLO5szShGcU2IRSuAnVRDLkFVqht2F+sU YpEuqvsp58ahXnPG7FShq63l690c3qj05ZNS4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=AbEeNLZbHCwOZEb66DYgXBpvG2yxBGjykthqK0WeU3pbcIL++202+YdaOGS1kjRGMp tp+yUyWcn0PSq2+Rf5xNXv8Lf3v9YAl+hmJvAGtEb3XTECvSpTYZ9umWpaALH5SI/vjb zwGNXbQ0S7iTF82pOuA/vCvPGGIahHlDyLRCk= Received: by 10.229.80.194 with SMTP id u2mr2370784qck.49.1288304379522; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:19:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ivoras@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.80.5 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:18:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20101028215759.GA6779@tops> References: <20101028141559.GA2291@tops> <20101028215759.GA6779@tops> From: Ivan Voras Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:18:58 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nSwenp_Z4y5ad7ijHHIf0oY2MJU Message-ID: To: Gleb Kurtsou Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-fs , FreeBSD-Current Subject: Re: Fixing and importing the fusefs kernel module - any VFS-savvy takers? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:19:42 -0000 On 28 October 2010 23:57, Gleb Kurtsou wrote: > On (28/10/2010 22:24), Ivan Voras wrote: >> On 28 October 2010 16:15, Gleb Kurtsou wrote: >> >> > I'd agree that "sshfs" is most wanted feature, but fuse_sshfs >> > implementation is broken at best. It doesn't even have notion on inode >> > numbers. It returns all directory entries with d_file=0, the same way >> > st_ino=0. To make it actually work (dirent's with d_file=0 considered >> > empty placeholders by FreeBSD VFS and libc) librefuse fills it with >> > arbitrary numbers. To make long story short stuff like 'cd ..' works for >> > you only because your sh and/or filemanager keeps full path on its own. >> > Lots of other things using VOP_VPTOCNP are also broken. In this >> > particular case puffs_sshfs looks much more promising, although it's >> > explicitly marked as incomplete and buggy. The same applies to vast >> > majority of fuse filesystems. Ignoring it is probably the easiest way to >> > solve the problem, but I'd expect future userlevel filesystem >> > implementation to comply to our VFS. >> >> For these fuse-sshfs problems, how many are the problem of sshfs (the >> userland code), the FUSE API (because it's designed for Linux) and the >> fuse4bsd kernel module (because it's unfinished and buggy)? > > These are sshfs problems, and the real problem is that user level This is good news, since userland is easier to fix. > filesystems are of much lower quality than kernel level. Writing good I wouldn't be that harsh - surely it's just a matter of general code quality whether in userland or kernel; there are a lot more userland file systems because the barrier to entry is lower. > filesystems in userspace shouldn't be much easier than writing kernel > one (not counting fancy language of choice and ntfs-3g-like use of > binary drivers). All the kernel restrictions and requirements are still > there nor puffs, nor fuse do black magic for you. I mostly agree - but as such it is not an argument for or against either puffs or fusefs. > That's why I'm so sceptical about fuse, puffs, and entire concept in > general. Is fuse really that stable on linux? Do people use it on > production servers? Here's a random sample of user comments and activity indicators I've googled in a few minutes: http://www.gluster.org/gluster-users/ http://www.persistentfs.com/#comments http://code.google.com/p/encfs/updates/list http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gfarm/report/1 These are the type of file systems which interest me, there are certainly others.