- passthrough.c mirrors existing filesystem, "Its performance is terrible."
- passthrough_fh.c "performance is not quite as bad."
- passthrough_ll.c implemented with low level api and "the least bad among the three"
- passthrough_hp.cc high performance version written in C++
Some interesting fuse projects in my notes: [1] splitting large files into segments; [2] show ZFS incremental snapshots as files; [3] transparent filesystem compression; [4] and [5] options for mounting archives as filesytems.
- [0] https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/tree/master/example
- [1] https://github.com/seiferma/splitviewfuse
- [2] https://github.com/UNFmontreal/zfs_fuse_snapshot
- [3] https://github.com/FS-make-simple/fusecompress
So for example, /etc/hosts from my snapshot zrepl_20241011_010143_000 would be at /.zfs/snapshot/zrepl_20241011_010143_000/etc/hosts
If you don't like the magic hidden nature of it, you can even configure it to behave like a normal folder with `zfs set snapdir=visible <dataset>`
IIRC, I used py9p and the python experience was much nicer than fuse-python. You can mount a 9p service via FUSE (9pfuse) if you want. I just used the kernel v9fs client. If you're just looking to pass a filesystem through the network, I think I used the diod 9p server.
Overall, it's a nice little ecosystem to explore.
I have some notes here [1], but it's mostly just linking to primary sources. FUSE is great, but 9P is more general and has high quality implementations all over the place, even in Windows!
One thing I'm not so sure about is the performance properties of 9p. I've seen some places indicate it's rather slow, but nothing definitive. Does anyone have any benchmarks or info on that?
[0]: https://github.com/chaos/diod/blob/master/protocol.md [1]: https://athenaeum.wiki/Zettelkasten/9p
Do you know if it’s possible to mount one’s own 9P servers under Windows? I seem to remember a comment from a Microsoft employee on GitHub something-or-other that said that capability is private to WSL2, but I can’t find it right now.
In a desperate attempt to find a less frustrating way to interact with Jira, I had the silly idea of starting a jira-as-filesystem project that uses our internal issue categorization to build a tree: directories represent issues, with files representing issue fields and subdirectories for linked issues. I ended up choosing fuse-python.
I haven't worked on it in a minute, but I was already bumping into issues (pun not intended) with the abstraction: using just the issue ID as directory name makes automation easier, but it makes it hard for humans to browse the tree, since a `ls` would just show you a bunch of inscrutable IDs. I ended up adding a parallel `<issue-type>-with-summary` directory type where the slugified summary is appended to each issue ID.
(Unless symlinks are somehow special - but at least both /dev and /proc also provide symlinks and to my knowledge they don't have any actual storage behind them, so it should be possible, I think)
EPIC-123
├─── user-stories
│ └─── STORY-234
└─── user-stories-with-summary
└─── STORY-234-add-support-for-feature-aThough I, personally, would not use it as JIRA is complicated enough for me.
Adjacent question: lately I’ve been seeing people implement NFS base filesystems since that is a more widely supported protocol. I think rclone does this for Mac. Is there a guide, or even a comparison, for this approach?
that's why you `chattr +i` the mountpoint
e.g. https://github.com/UNFmontreal/zfs_fuse_snapshot/blob/master...
One healthy thing a move like that might encourage is turning which language to use into a more deliberate choice based on the virtues of the language itself with respect to a task. With Python it's kinda too easy to just always reach for the familiar whether it's actually a good fit or not.
Google is reducing its Python investment. Python is just the most marketed language.
Students learning Scheme learn good habits, and Scheme will not go away.