3 ms·
Not sure if /s :) With a FUSE filesystem, you're still incurring the syscall overhead that's causing this performance disparity in the first case, plus now the
by majewsky 7y ago
Not sure if /s :)
With a FUSE filesystem, you're still incurring the syscall overhead that's causing this performance disparity in the first case, plus now the kernel has to context-switch into the FUSEing process. So what would be 2 context switches for each syscall (program -> kernel -> program) now is 3 or 4 context switches (program -> kernel -> FUSE -> (kernel ->) program).
FUSE has some amazing usecases, but performance is none of them.
- GordonS 7y agoErm, no, no sarcasm, but in truth I know very little about FUSE, beyond it being an API for userland file systems. I'm also approaching this as primarily a Windows user - a lot of the overhead on Windows is access checks, so my thinking is these would be implemented as noops.