Re: [BackupPC-users] Concrete proposal for feature extension for pooling

[Craig B. <cba...@us...>]

Jeffrey,

Yes, read-only FUSE is a good idea.

I previously prototyped a read/write FUSE on top of BackupPC pooling
to support native rsync and tar, but the performance was quite poor
so I abandoned that approach for 4.x.

The BackupPC::View API hasn't changed a whole lot (and it supports both
4.x and 3.x legacy), so the existing FUSE code should port over pretty
easily.

One issue with the current 3.x FUSE is that the inode number does
not correctly represent original hardlinks.  That should be solved
in 4.x since I've added a virtual (fake) inode to the attrib file.
The hardlink backup file type is eliminated; hardlinks are now more
faithfully represented as two files with the same (fake) inode.

I haven't decided whether I will make read-only FUSE a built-in feature,
but I've recorded your vote.

Craig