On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Paul B. Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/14/08, Bruce M Simpson <b...@incunabulum.net> wrote: >> Paul B. Mahol wrote: >>>> Can you please relay this feedback to the authors of ext2fuse? >>>> >>>> As mentioned earlier in the thread, the ext2fuse code could benefit from >>>> UBLIO-ization. Are you or any other volunteers happy to help out here? >>>> >>> >>> Well, first higher priority would be to fix existing bugs. It would be >>> very little >>> gain with user cache, because it is already too much IMHO slow and >>> adding user cache >>> will not make it faster, but that is not port problem. >>> >> >> I'm not aware of bugs with ext2fuse itself; my work on the port was >> merely to try to raise awareness that a user-space project for ext2 >> filesystem access existed. >> >> Can you elaborate further on your experience with ext2fuse which seems >> to you to be buggy, i.e. symptoms, root cause analysis etc. ? Have you >> reported these to the author(s)? > > I have read TODO. > >> Have you measured the performance? Is the performance sufficient for the >> needs of an occasional desktop user? > > Performance was not sufficient, and adding user cache will not improve access > speed on first read. > After mounting ext2fs volume (via md(4)) created with e2fsprogs port > and copying data > from ufs to ext2, reading was quite slow. Also ext2fuse after mount > doesnt exits it > is still running displaying debug data - explaining why project > itselfs is in alpha > state. > >> I realise we are largely involved in content-free argument here, however >> the trade-off of ext2fuse vs ext2fs in the FreeBSD kernel source tree, >> is that of a hopefully more actively maintained implementation vs one >> which is not maintained at all, and any alternatives for FreeBSD users >> would be welcome. > > Project itself doesnt look very active, but I may be wrong. It is in alpha > state > as reported on SF. > IMHO it is better to maintain our own because it is in better shape, but I'm > not > intersted in ext* as developer.
AFAIK our ext* either barfs or corrupts ext3, and since linux is pretty much all using ext3 these days, we're stuck in read-only for ext3, which is rather undesirable, methinks (seems everyone's using fuse's ntfs for this same reason [which is stable, however]). Which is not to say stealing the ext3 (journal?) implementation and putting it in our code isn't a better choice, I'm just pointing out there is no good choice right now... Steve _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
