ext2fuse: user-space ext2 implementation
Paul B. Mahol
onemda at gmail.com
Sun Dec 14 07:47:29 PST 2008
On 12/14/08, Bruce M Simpson <bms at incunabulum.net> wrote:
> Paul B. Mahol wrote:
>>> Can you please relay this feedback to the authors of ext2fuse?
>>> As mentioned earlier in the thread, the ext2fuse code could benefit from
>>> UBLIO-ization. Are you or any other volunteers happy to help out here?
>> Well, first higher priority would be to fix existing bugs. It would be
>> very little
>> gain with user cache, because it is already too much IMHO slow and
>> adding user cache
>> will not make it faster, but that is not port problem.
> I'm not aware of bugs with ext2fuse itself; my work on the port was
> merely to try to raise awareness that a user-space project for ext2
> filesystem access existed.
> Can you elaborate further on your experience with ext2fuse which seems
> to you to be buggy, i.e. symptoms, root cause analysis etc. ? Have you
> reported these to the author(s)?
I have read TODO.
> Have you measured the performance? Is the performance sufficient for the
> needs of an occasional desktop user?
Performance was not sufficient, and adding user cache will not improve access
speed on first read.
After mounting ext2fs volume (via md(4)) created with e2fsprogs port
and copying data
from ufs to ext2, reading was quite slow. Also ext2fuse after mount
doesnt exits it
is still running displaying debug data - explaining why project
itselfs is in alpha
> I realise we are largely involved in content-free argument here, however
> the trade-off of ext2fuse vs ext2fs in the FreeBSD kernel source tree,
> is that of a hopefully more actively maintained implementation vs one
> which is not maintained at all, and any alternatives for FreeBSD users
> would be welcome.
Project itself doesnt look very active, but I may be wrong. It is in alpha state
as reported on SF.
IMHO it is better to maintain our own because it is in better shape, but I'm not
intersted in ext* as developer.
More information about the freebsd-fs