OSNews

"""now I can use ntfs which has much better performance and stability."""

Is this true? I've never used FUSE. Partly because I have had no compelling need to access filesystems not supported natively by Linux. But also because I assumed that its user space nature had performance, and possibly stability, ramifications.

Could someone in the know please comment upon the pros and cons of user space filesystems?

well.. what he meant was that ntfs is better than fat, which is certainly true.

as for pros and cons.

well, userspace isnt less stable than kernelspace, so fuse filesystems wont necessarily be any less stable than kernel level filesystems (though many probably are).

the pros are that you can write in basically any language you like, since fuse has bindings for mostly everything, and furthermore, you can use c libraries, or libraries for whatever language you use, to develop the filesystem.

this ofcourse means that if these things have bugs, the fuse filesystem may carry bugs, but its as such with everything.

as for speed? well. there is probably a slight performance hit, but as all code, if its optimized, its fast

Hi,

There is a FUSE freebsd port and many other ports that interact with fuse to achieve sshfs, ntfs, etc..

It contains a kernel module, userland libs for the fuse framework and sshfs/ntfs support.

http://fuse4bsd.creo.hu/
http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

And you can find many fuse related ports:

http://www.freshports.org/search.php?query=fuse&search=go&num=10&st...

Cheers

boot camp?

ok, I see.

Portable hard drives

Ummm...to run Windows perhaps? You know, the whole boot camp thing that happened....ummmm....almost a year ago?

Just having having code communicating between ring 3 and ring 0 doesn't make it microkernel like. The bulk of the work is still done in kernel mode. The user mode stuff acts as a last mile translation layer.

Yes, it's "like" a microkernel. I do not understand the question since it's pretty clear, in fact it was one of the reasons why people actually developed it in the linux kernel: allow people to implement easily (you can use whatever programming language you want) and safely. In fact, I've heard that Mac OS X also has a FUSE-like thing.

But there's a reason why ext3, ZFS, XFS, NTFS, HPFS and friends are not implemented in userspace in their native operative systems: performance. Anyway, with FUSE in linux/osx you get all the advantages of monolithic kernels (no, os x is not a microkernel, the fs lives in the same address space than the kernel and running as privileged code, i don't see how that is a microkernel) and microkernels at the same time.

> In fact, I've heard that Mac OS X also has a FUSE-like
> thing.

Erm... had a look at the topic of this thread?

yes - have you read what I said? FUSE is not the first "filesystems in userspace for monolithic kernels" implementation, and it's said that mac os x alredy had its own

>and why isnt it? not that i hope anyone does the port.
>stuff like fuse should be reserved for people using a
>proper OS
Now now, theres no need for name calling.

A user-space filesystem for windows would be very useful IMHO.

Edited 2007-01-12 23:06

and why isnt it? not that i hope anyone does the port. stuff like fuse should be reserved for people using a proper OS

OSS people don't seem to have any problems with this (look OO.o, FFox, Gimp, Gtk,...). You should preach this kind of sentiment to MS and Apple.

They reserve their things for people using proper OS and not otherwise.