From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:22:14 -0500
From: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@gmx.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] fuse bashing
Message-ID: <20060124022214.GD26367@ionkov.net>
References: <20060123170614.07D331E8C37@holo.morphisms.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060123170614.07D331E8C37@holo.morphisms.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e4db5868-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:06:09PM -0500, Russ Cox said:
> It appears to match the kernel better, so the implementation
> should be simpler.  (As soon as you want to talk between

It is much simpler (and probably faster), and that's a big win for FUSE:

	$ cat fs/fuse/*.[ch] | wc -l
	4073

	$ cat 9p/*.[ch] | wc -l
	7271

And v9fs doesn't even have full 9P support (all users share single attach
for example).

V9fs's big plus is that it is network ready and has some form of
authentication.

I didn't see many interesting file systems on the FUSE page. I think that
v9fs can become very popular as long as we create enough useful file servers
(and even more important, write good documentation).

	Lucho