u-codalist-z149_at_aetey.se writes:

>> But seriously, in 2010+ all other serious distributed filesystems except
>> NFS seem to be "FUSE first".   A particular case in point is GlusterFS.
>> Someone in NetBSD has been getting Gluster ported to NetBSD, and has
>> reported file read rates over the network (GbE) from remote servers at a
>> substantial fraction (60%?  more?) of the GbE rate, on a
>> normal-but-fairly-high-end amd64 box.
>> 
>> So I don't think the performance issues are really that big a deal any
>> more.
>
> The performance of read/write in Coda (note we are not talking about
> open() and friends) does not relate to the ability to "fill" the network.
>
> It is about processes efficiently accessing the _local_ (cached) files.
> So your comparison may be not exactly applicable.
> (I recall ZFS on Linux has remarkably worse performance via FUSE compared
> to natively)

That's a fair point.   What I really mean is that the speed of FUSE is
high enough that it doesn't seem likely to be an issue.

It's also possible to add in some sort of container file interface to
FUSE, eventually, which is similar to what coda does, but gets it moved
to a different layer where hopefully more people/code will use it and
care.  Coda just has too few people...