4 ms·

FUSE is a better developer experience since the end user doesn't have to worry about loading the extension every time they use a SQLite driver or the sqlite3 CL

FUSE is a better developer experience since the end user doesn't have to worry about loading the extension every time they use a SQLite driver or the sqlite3 CLI. LiteFS runs an HTTP API server to communicate between nodes as well and if you run multiple processes with a VFS then you have to determine which one should start up that server. Those are the main advantages. Otherwise they're similar file system level interfaces.

yellowapple 4y ago
> FUSE is a better developer experience since the end user doesn't have to worry about loading the extension every time they use a SQLite driver or the sqlite3 CLI. For the CLI that's a fair concern, but from an "I'm writing an application that links against libsqlite3 and/or includes sqlite3.c" I feel like the opposite is true: I'll have a much easier time configuring the VFS in my app than fiddling with FUSE mounts. > LiteFS runs an HTTP API server to communicate between nodes as well and if you run multiple processes with a VFS then you have to determine which one should start up that server. Wouldn't that be a similar problem as working out which process should be the writer? I'm admittedly not too familiar with either Litestream or LiteFS, so that might be a dumb question.