News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016). Parent comment

Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016) by voltagex_ on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @07:49PM (#15597766)
That's been experimental for a long time - https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/9p

I guess file systems don't go into staging/?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016) by LukeShu on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @09:51PM (#15598324)
On Arch Linux, it's been enabled by default for several years, and I've been using it daily for that time.

On x86_64, it's plenty stable, but I see why it's still experimental: On i686 there's a bug where files are mysteriously missing from directory listings. I tried to debug it once; it's reading them from the protocol correctly, but they're being dropped in the VFS layer, which is a bit more complicated than the network protocol.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016) by thisrod on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @12:57AM (#15598873)
Maybe, once FUSE came along, 9pfuse made more sense than putting 9p in the kernel?

https://9fans.github.io/plan9port/man/man4/9pfuse.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016) by exikyut on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @09:16AM (#15600829)
I was just wondering, as I began to read the article: which would perform better - in-kernel 9P, or FUSE?

Intuitively I get the idea that FUSE is going to be the better performer overall because of lack of network overhead.

But I wonder how much worse 9P would be.

[ Parent | on HN ]