On Sunday 06 August 2006 14:41, Lexington Luthor wrote: > Bernd Schubert wrote: > > An alternative might be a reiser4 fuse port. Has some advantages: > > > > - Doesn't need to be included into the kernel. > > > > - can be GPL > > > > - Referring to the fuse site it also works on BSD > > (http://fuse4bsd.creo.hu/). > > > > - Kills one of the major arguments on LKML - if reiser4 is included but > > Namesys abandons it in the future and reiser4 has to be removed from the > > kernel that time again, it still could be mounted. > > Please please no. The kernel people will use that as an argument for > keeping it out of the kernel. I want reiser4 to be popular enough to > make my apps depend on it and not have the users complain about having > to use an obscure fs. > > Besides, the only thing about reiser4 that interests me more than XFS or > reiserfs is the speed. In FUSE, you lose all that (as well as millions > of context switches, there is a huge amount of copying going on). If > reiser4 gets slower, I might as well use XFS or even old reiserfs.
Well, by having a FUSE port just more users would use reiser4, which might increase the force to the linux distributors to include reiser4 into their kernel versions. Regarding the speed, I understand that its slower with FUSE, I was also deeply impressed when I read this (http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=23836054&forum_id=2697) But being twice as fast as ext3 is enough currently. It's even faster than xfs what I use. Sometimes I'm quite suprised why something is so fast when I realize that it was actually ntfs-3g :-) Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Schubert PCI / Theoretische Chemie Universität Heidelberg INF 229 69120 Heidelberg
