From: Miklos S. <msz...@in...> - 2004-03-26 08:42:50
|
> 1) Is it possible to write an autofs replacement > based on fuse? If a user program executes an open() command for a > file in a FUSE filesystem, can the user space daemon attached to it > mount a new file system just in time and dispatch the call to it? Very good question! This hasn't been tried yet... Open is too late because mounts are only followed in lookup. So the stat() method, which is called from lookup would be good, but since mount also needs to look up the mountpoint, this would lead to a deadlock. I see no trivial solution. I wonder how automount does it. This needs to be looked at. > 2) What about EAs and ACLs in conjunction with FUSE? Currently there's no support for these. If there is a need, it probably isn't hard to extend the API and the kernel interface. But I haven't used either so I'm not the best person to answer this question. > 3) Which is better? LUFS or FUSE? ;-) Who would believe me if I said LUFS :). Seriously: FUSE has a superior kernel part, there's no question about that. The userspace parts have slightly differing designs, each having merits over the other. For example LUFS has a directory cache, which comes very handy in ftpfs. So I think that both have reasons to live, and since you can use the lufis bridge to run LUFS filesystems with the FUSE kernel module, I see no problem with it. I use sshfs every day, and it's cool :) Miklos |