> On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 12:37 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
quoted text
> > There's one thing which makes fuse a slightly better candidate for
> > applications where the number of users is low: stability.  Unless you
> > or your users test the hell out of your filesystem, there always a
> > chance that some bugs will remain.  These rarely bring down the whole
> > system, but it usually requires a reboot to let you continue using the
> > Oopsing fs.
> 
> I think it's a slippery slope from that to rewriting Linux as a
> microkernel.

You say that as if a microkernel had _no_ advantages.  Which isn't
true: it's just a trade between performance and encapsulation.  What I
was saying, that if there are few users, and so the tester base is
limited, then they _might_ just be better off with a slower, but more
stable solution.

I'm not advocating moving ext3 to fuse.  And I didn't advocate moving
ntfs to fuse, still that was done and the resulting filesystem at the
moment happens to outperform the kernel one in every respect ;)

Miklos
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/