Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:59:57 -0500 From: Chuck Burns <break19@gmail.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MPSAFE VFS -- List of upcoming actions Message-ID: <20120718065957.d1c7f91a.break19@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <50067BF2.40907@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAJ-FndAJtFx_OhqzDvBSLQ5pEaX730oF8Tbyk%2BkYbz9y1KaXXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndC=3Z9hNAHR9cwwypxhx%2Be27%2B6eiHWxOxRBij8H_wLb6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndBzoeXpFFHEmhiYZ9er=n0zXSXXo-vbrLX4ZmYdjDQMhg@mail.gmail.com> <50064FB2.3020409@entel.upc.edu> <50067BF2.40907@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 02:03:46 -0700 Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 07/17/2012 22:54, Gustau P=E9rez i Querol wrote: > > In fact filesystems not particulary specific and not tied our kernel > > would go to userspace; thinks like smbfs, nwfs, ntfs, ext2 o ext4 for > > example should be in userspace >=20 > A big -1 here. >=20 > The more native FS support we have the better off we are in terms of > both people migrating from other OS', and people who need to maintain > compatibility with other OS'. Personally I use both msdosfs and ext2fs > extensively for the latter purpose, and would not want to see either > removed. Agree with Doug. Fuse is generally much slower than native access, and has= higher CPU cost as well. My poor athlonxp 2k+ jumps to 100% CPU usage whe= n I copy files from either an ext4fuse or ntfs-3g filesystem to UFS. Pleas= e do not remove native access, and I would like to see even more native sup= port. --=20 Chuck Burns <break19@gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120718065957.d1c7f91a.break19>