Re: More compatibility for refuse

[manu%netbsd.org@localhost (Emmanuel Dreyfus)]

Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:

>   Do you think that (for things that use the high-level API) it is
>   better to use (upstream, via pkgsrc) libfuse and perfuse, instead of
>   using librefuse?  If so, could you explain why?  It seems to me to add
>   a layer of indirection and a daemon.

Indeed, I think that using the real libfuse for FUSE filesystems removes
the burden of following the FUSE high level API target, which seems to
move quite fast. 

On the performance front, it is true that the perfuse stack will cause
data to be copied back and forth. When I started it, I thought that I
would quickly have to add shared memory tricks to avoid copying data,
but it has not been an obvious requirement: both GlusterFS and LTFS have
decent performances, probably limited by other factors: network latency
for GlusterFS and LTO drive throughput for LTFS.

>   It seems the underlying problem is that upstream libfuse is not good
>   about compatibility, and thus filesystems that haven't update to the
>   30 API are troubled.

Would it be possible to install multiple libfuse versions, so that eacch
filesystem has the one it needs?
-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu%netbsd.org@localhost