(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
"M. Satyanarayanan" <satya_at_cs.cmu.edu> writes: > In FUSE, is there a way to direct read() and write() operations > directly to a local file, without bouncing up to user space? That's > what the Coda kernel module does today, and we need to think through > the performance implications if that is not possible. The latency and > bandwidth of read() and write() operations are not slowed down by > Venus today --- only open() and close(). Will we be giving that up? > If we have to, will it matter? I'm not really sure. It certainly seems possible to add in support for that kind of redirection to FUSE (or to puffs, which I think is more capable than FUSE, being a second system :-). With page loaning and read ahead, I'm not sure how much this will actually hurt. It would be interesting to get coda/FUSE running and benchmark it. But, from where I sit, this is a third-order performance question, and "coda doesn't work on my mac" is 10^6 times more important. Were there working coda kernel support for all the places FUSE works, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation in the same way :-) I don't think people are advocating "rip out coda kernel module support From venus". It's more "add in a way to compile for FUSE instead".Received on 2010-05-20 09:02:09