Re: FUSE merging?

Pavel Machek
2005-07-03T19:40:06Z

Hi!

> > > > > > I leave the decision to you ;) It's a separate independent patch
> > > > > > already (fuse-nfs-export.patch).
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's leave it out - that'll stimulate some activity in the
> > > > > userspace-nfs-server-for-FUSE area.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of which, dumb question: what does FUSE offer over simply using
> > > > > NFS protocol to talk to the userspace filesystem driver?
> > > >
> > > > Oh lots:
> > > >
> > > > - no deadlocks (NFS mounted from localhost is riddled with them)
> > >
> > > It is? We had some low-memory problems a while back, but they got fixed.
> > > During that work I did some nfs-to-localhost testing and things seemed OK.
> >
> > Well, there's the "unsolvable" writeback deadlock problem, that FUSE
> > works around by not buffering dirty pages (and not allowing writable
> > mmap). Does NFS solve that? I'm interested :)
>
> I don't know - first you'd have to describe it.

Actually, the right question is "how is fuse better than coda". I've
asked that before; unlike nfs, userspace filesystems implemented with
coda actually *work*, but do not provide partial-file writes.

Pavel
--
teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be.