Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes? - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes? - Plan9 ; Amit Singh wrote: > On Mar 29, 3:15 am, boris.marys...@gmail.com (Boris Maryshev) wrote: >> Unix or not, it would be much appreciated if different fuse >> implementations were compatible. > > Certainly. However: > > FUSE was originally designed/implemented for ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?

  1. Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?

    Amit Singh wrote:
    > On Mar 29, 3:15 am, boris.marys...@gmail.com (Boris Maryshev) wrote:
    >> Unix or not, it would be much appreciated if different fuse
    >> implementations were compatible.

    >
    > Certainly. However:
    >
    > FUSE was originally designed/implemented for Linux. Unlike Mac OS X,
    > which has a FreeBSD-like (but not the same) vnode-centric file system
    > architecture, the Linux file system layer is file-centric. This causes
    > several issues, combined with the nature of Mac OS X kernel
    > interfaces. Therefore, a 100% faithful FUSE API implementation is not
    > currently feasible on Mac OS X *under realistic circumstances*. That's
    > all.


    Not to complicate the issue, but Mac is not limited to BSD 'like'.

    I run all those I install with UFS-only. Grant, Mac's UFS is a few releases
    behind BSD's, but at least it is not hfs / hfs+.

    Which - AFAIK, has sod-all to do with FUSE in any case. But at least gives me
    BSD-compatible filenames as well as a faster fs.

    And, JFWIW, Mac's UFS supports Inferno-for-OS X just fine. So AFAIK, a Mac with
    one or more UFS partitions might not have as great a need for FUSE.

    Bill Hacker


  2. Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?

    > And, JFWIW, Mac's UFS supports Inferno-for-OS X just fine. So AFAIK, a Mac with
    > one or more UFS partitions might not have as great a need for FUSE.


    I really think it has the need. The main point is that files from the
    inferno are not real
    files, they provide services instead. So, to make those services
    available for the mac,
    I mount in macos inferno file trees.

  3. Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?

    On Mar 29, 6:37 am, w...@conducive.org (W B Hacker) wrote:

    > Not to complicate the issue, but Mac is not limited to BSD 'like'.


    I'm not sure I understand this. The VFS layer is the same regardless
    of which file system you use, so the BSD-like VFS layer is always
    going to be just that: BSD-like.

    > I run all those I install with UFS-only. Grant, Mac's UFS is a few releases
    > behind BSD's, but at least it is not hfs / hfs+.
    > Which - AFAIK, has sod-all to do with FUSE in any case. But at least gives me
    > BSD-compatible filenames as well as a faster fs.


    On Mac OS X, there are many, many reasons to use journaled HFS+ over
    UFS, and very few reasons to do otherwise. "Faster fs" is not one of
    the latter reasons. I'm curious if you've performed, or are aware of,
    some benchmarks that show UFS on Mac OS X to be faster overall than HFS
    +, assuming some reasonable definition of "faster".

    By the way, beginning with Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther), HFS+ comes in a
    case-sensitive flavor too.

  4. Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?

    On 3/29/07, W B Hacker wrote:
    > Amit Singh wrote:
    > > On Mar 29, 3:15 am, boris.marys...@gmail.com (Boris Maryshev) wrote:
    > >> Unix or not, it would be much appreciated if different fuse
    > >> implementations were compatible.

    > >
    > > Certainly. However:
    > >
    > > FUSE was originally designed/implemented for Linux. Unlike Mac OS X,
    > > which has a FreeBSD-like (but not the same) vnode-centric file system
    > > architecture, the Linux file system layer is file-centric. This causes
    > > several issues, combined with the nature of Mac OS X kernel
    > > interfaces. Therefore, a 100% faithful FUSE API implementation is not
    > > currently feasible on Mac OS X *under realistic circumstances*. That's
    > > all.

    >
    > Not to complicate the issue, but Mac is not limited to BSD 'like'.
    >
    > I run all those I install with UFS-only. Grant, Mac's UFS is a few releases
    > behind BSD's, but at least it is not hfs / hfs+.
    >
    > Which - AFAIK, has sod-all to do with FUSE in any case. But at least gives me
    > BSD-compatible filenames as well as a faster fs.


    Got some numbers to back that up? Or links? I'm curious. Because
    HFS's many variations (some of which ARE case sensitive) actually do
    things like hot clustering and background defragmentation that should,
    in theory, help keep things running nicely for quite some time.

    >
    > And, JFWIW, Mac's UFS supports Inferno-for-OS X just fine. So AFAIK, a Mac with
    > one or more UFS partitions might not have as great a need for FUSE.


    I've never had a problem on Mac OS X using Inferno with HFS+, but I
    see very little that makes this invalidate uses for FUSE.

    Of course your usage may differ from mine, and likely does :-)

    Dave

    >
    > Bill Hacker
    >
    >



    --
    - Passage Matthew 5:37:
    But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever
    is more than these cometh of evil.

+ Reply to Thread