Jody Harris wrote: > Okay: with the FTP front-end enabled, can we use the FUSE ftp module?
Yes, that ought to work. I don't know if it will perform as well as you might like, since that puts like three layers in between your apps and your data, but it's worth a try. I seem to recall that we had fairly good success with an OS-X *sftp* FUSE module, at least as of a year ago when I used it last. And OS-X can do read-only mounts of FTP servers directly, without FUSE, which was part of our motivation for getting Tahoe's FTP server running. One disappointment you might run into is that making small changes to a file will still require the whole thing to be downloaded, modifed, and then uploaded again. I don't know if it's even possible to "open" a file in an editing application from an FTP/SFTP FUSE mount, although the module might be smart enough to copy the file to a local holding area and let the application work on the cached copy. You might also run into some limitations of tahoe's FTP server: it doesn't implement all of the extensions that modern servers provide, and sometimes the FUSE modules use those to improve performance. However, as FUSE access paths go, using FTP or SFTP is probably a better "impedance match" for Tahoe than some other possibilities, because both protocols (mostly) deal in terms of whole files, instead of small read()/write() calls on random portions of a file. Tahoe's immutable-centric approach doesn't play so well with the normal POSIX open/seek/read/write/close APIs, so some FUSE bindings that assume a more mutable backend will spend a lot of time and bandwidth caching things. In any case, please let us know what you learn! cheers, -Brian _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
