Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:04:01 +0200 From: Gustau Perez Querol <gperez@entel.upc.edu> To: <break19@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MPSAFE VFS -- List of upcoming actions Message-ID: <e69b9cef0c6574be1b2afa6710764e0c@webmail.entel.upc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20120718065957.d1c7f91a.break19@gmail.com> 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> <20120718065957.d1c7f91a.break19@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:59:57 -0500, Chuck Burns wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 02:03:46 -0700 > Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e69b9cef0c6574be1b2afa6710764e0c>