From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 19 09:04:09 2012 Return-Path: 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 18831106564A for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:04:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gperez@entel.upc.edu) Received: from dash.upc.es (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911C48FC0C for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by dash.upc.es (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q6J946JA022396; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:04:07 +0200 Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (www-entel.upc.es [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C279B2CBD0E; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:04:01 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:04:01 +0200 From: Gustau Perez Querol To: In-Reply-To: <20120718065957.d1c7f91a.break19@gmail.com> References: <50064FB2.3020409@entel.upc.edu> <50067BF2.40907@FreeBSD.org> <20120718065957.d1c7f91a.break19@gmail.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: gperez@entel.upc.edu User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.5.1 X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:04:07 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MPSAFE VFS -- List of upcoming actions 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: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:04:09 -0000 On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:59:57 -0500, Chuck Burns wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 02:03:46 -0700 > Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 07/17/2012 22:54, Gustau Pérez 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 >> >> A big -1 here. >> >> 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 when I copy files from either an ext4fuse or ntfs-3g > filesystem to UFS. Please do not remove native access, and I would > like to see even more native support. I agree CPU is a concern. As I said I'd vote for a list of native and well maintained fs' in the kernel plus the option of a well maintained fuse support for the other fs'. I don't know the exact list, it was just an exmample. For example, the lingua-franca problem would end up with a well maintained native fs. If no one volunteers, then at least there would be the option of the userspace implementation. Let it be ntfs, ext2 or anything else. I do prefer slower access than no access at all; e.g.: I don't have native RW acess with NTFS today, and we're going have no access to NTFS when the mpsafe vfs deadline arrives. At least this is my opinion. For fuse and cpu problems, it has many internal problem that probably raise the CPU usage. At least I've never seen that kind of figures with a linux machine using fuse. Best, Gustau