On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:17:41 +0200 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mi, 09 dec 20, 15:23:44, Celejar wrote: > > > > I'm curious about this because I can't imagine that FUSE performance is > > as good as native, so why would automounters pay the performance > > penalty of FUSE when native mounting would seem easy enough to do? > > The ntfs-3g developers claim there is no significant penalty. Testing > their claims would be difficult though, considering the kernel driver > has limited functionality. I'm certainly not going to dispute the ntfs-3g developers, but I had had in mind these comments of Linus Torvald that I had just come across: "People who think that userspace filesystems are realistic for anything but toys are just misguided. fuse works fine if the thing being exported is some random low-use interface to a fundamentally slow device. But for something like your root filesystem? Nope. Not going to happen." https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/9/462 Linus sometimes exaggerates, and in any event, external USB storage devices are (generally) somewhere in between "your root filesystem" and "some random low-use ..." A quick search turns up this: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast17/fast17-vangoor.pdf which I haven't had a chance to read. Celejar