![]() This includes performance, which would be typically the major theoretical complain if a user space driver were involved (as you also commented).īut the truth is, if it exists at all, far more complex. Most users don't care what's the technology, only if it works (reliably, usable, featureful enough). Open source NTFS-3G with FUSE (Linux, FreeBSD), MacFUSE (OS X), ReFUSE (NetBSD) is for interoperability which is used by many, regularly. One of the major driving forces behind NTFS-3G development is exactly that, to also help ZFS development. In fact we are already working implicitely on Linux ZFS support "by" FUSE. ![]() ![]() Posted 0:33 UTC (Thu) by szaka (subscriber, #12740) find(1) could be speed up 5 folds in general by fully filling structĪnd of course several things could be optimized here and there forĭifferent kind of corner cases and workloads (allocators, extent and transparent file compressors/decompressors, etc).NTFS-3G doesn't have any of its own caches yet (directory, inode, etc).non-properly aligned writes are split in the kernel and the FUSEįs ends up doing twice as much work as it would be needed (e.g.ĮncFS is hit by this, halving its performance when used with NTFS-3G).kernel double caches read/write buffers (FUSE and blockdev sides,.Optimized away, only metadata calculations (and transaction based read/write data copies between the kernel and a fuseblk fs could be.Improved in the kernel, FUSE and NTFS-3G that could increase efficiencyĭramatically (lower CPU usage and/or higher I/O). PleaseĪlso note that we're still designing and implementing missingįunctionalities and didn't start the optimization work yet.īut we're aware of and identified already several things which could be The article mentions NTFS-3G has decent and good performance. Parent article: ZFS on Linux: It's alive (LinuxWorld) Posted 0:26 UTC (Tue) by szaka (subscriber, #12740)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |