On 3/29/07, W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Amit Singh wrote:
> On Mar 29, 3:15 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boris Maryshev) wrote:
>> Unix or not, it would be much appreciated if different fuse
>> implementations were compatible.
>
> Certainly. However:
>
> FUSE was originally designed/implemented for Linux. Unlike Mac OS X,
> which has a FreeBSD-like (but not the same) vnode-centric file system
> architecture, the Linux file system layer is file-centric. This causes
> several issues, combined with the nature of Mac OS X kernel
> interfaces. Therefore, a 100% faithful FUSE API implementation is not
> currently feasible on Mac OS X *under realistic circumstances*. That's
> all.
Not to complicate the issue, but Mac is not limited to BSD 'like'.
I run all those I install with UFS-only. Grant, Mac's UFS is a few releases
behind BSD's, but at least it is not hfs / hfs+.
Which - AFAIK, has sod-all to do with FUSE in any case. But at least gives me
BSD-compatible filenames as well as a faster fs.
Got some numbers to back that up? Or links? I'm curious. Because
HFS's many variations (some of which ARE case sensitive) actually do
things like hot clustering and background defragmentation that should,
in theory, help keep things running nicely for quite some time.
And, JFWIW, Mac's UFS supports Inferno-for-OS X just fine. So AFAIK, a Mac with
one or more UFS partitions might not have as great a need for FUSE.
I've never had a problem on Mac OS X using Inferno with HFS+, but I
see very little that makes this invalidate uses for FUSE.
Of course your usage may differ from mine, and likely does :-)
Dave
Bill Hacker
--
- Passage Matthew 5:37:
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever
is more than these cometh of evil.
