From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:26:08 -0500 From: Latchesar Ionkov To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] fuse bashing Message-ID: <20060125002608.GB8690@ionkov.net> References: <20060124201041.5A72A78FBB@dexter-peak.quanstro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Topicbox-Message-UUID: e6d4f8ea-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Is there ramfs for FUSE? Thanks, Lucho On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 03:37:54PM -0600, Eric Van Hensbergen said: > On 1/24/06, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote: > > On Mon Jan 23 20:21:36 CST 2006, lucho@gmx.net wrote: > > > 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 > > > > There's likely quite a bit more complexity in the 9P kernel modules. > As was pointed out earlier, FUSE basically just gateways VFS calls to > user-space. This is an oversimplificaiton, but its not doing any of > the mapping we are doing in v9fs. > > I'm not willing to say FUSE sucks, it is what it is, and for some > folks its going to be the right solution. However, for the file > systems I wanted to write, it wasn't a good match and for file systems > of any complexity the FUSE user-space code seems to get out of hand > quickly. > > Which brings up a good point for folks who are wc -l 'ing -- anyone > look at the relative sizes of ramfs coded in 9P and FUSE (including > their library code)? > > -eric