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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon Jan 23 20:21:36 CST 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
