4 ms·
I think FUSE performance has significantly improved since 2010, the year in which ZFS-On-Linux became available I believe. This is just one of many examples: h
by miduil 4y ago
I think FUSE performance has significantly improved since 2010, the year in which ZFS-On-Linux became available I believe.
This is just one of many examples: https://www.phoronix.com/news/MTI1MzM https://www.phoronix.com/news/MTI1MzM
In contrary, in some cases FUSE is even faster than doing a regular kernel mount(). There is an experimental research distribution called distri that is exclusively relying on fuse mounting and figured out that FUSE was faster for doing mounts. https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/tags/distri/ https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/tags/distri/
- seabrookmx 4y agoYou're conflating zfs-fuse and zfs-on-linux (ZoL). The first one is as it's name suggests.. a user space implementation of ZFS. ZoL (now unified with OpenZFS) is implemented as a kernel module and as such does _not_ run in user space. It performs significantly better as a result. FUSE is still slow, which is why there's ongoing effort to replace things like NTFS-3G (the default NTFS implementation in most linux distros) with an in-kernel implementation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28418674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28418674
- miduil 4y agoHow do I conflate zfs-fuse with ZoL? I was trying to highlight that if someones memory of "poor fuse performance" is because of zfs-fuse, then someones memory must be quite old, as ZoL has been available for quite some time and since then also fuse itself has received quite some performance gains. Edit: Also I don't want to imply that FUSE is near in-kernel filesystems, but it is certainly performing much better than 12 years ago.