Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Experiment with FUSE 3 #1867

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Experiment with FUSE 3 #1867

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

gaul
Copy link
Member

@gaul gaul commented Jan 22, 2022 •
edited

This increases the maximum write size from 128 KB to 1 MB and supports
some interesting FUSE_READDIR_PLUS flags. Remove stale
FUSE_CAP_BIG_WRITES option. References #1159.

@gaul
Copy link
Member Author

gaul commented Jan 22, 2022

This is not a serious proposal but I want to see how much breaks in CI.

@gaul gaul force-pushed the fuse3 branch 3 times, most recently from 89400a6 to 1a0e854 Compare January 23, 2022 00:59
@gaul
Copy link
Member Author

gaul commented Jan 23, 2022

#1868 will address some of the CI failures but Ubuntu 18.04 and Debian Stretch lack FUSE 3. macOS has its own issues.

@ggtakec
Copy link
Member

ggtakec commented Jan 23, 2022

This fix is noteworthy.
Ultimately, I think it's better to wrap or separate the I/F functions, taking into account the differences between fuse2 and fuse3.
(I'm sure that support for fuse2 will continue)

@gaul
Copy link
Member Author

gaul commented Jan 23, 2022

I don't think we need to merge this today -- perhaps after Ubuntu 18.04 and Debian Stretch are EOL (2023). I am more concerned about any other blockers, e.g., macOS. Having too much conditional logic to support old FUSE will become complicated.

@ggtakec
Copy link
Member

ggtakec commented Jan 23, 2022

When I thought about the support for FUSE3 before, I noticed the difference between FUSE2 and FUSE3 and the difference in the prototype of the I/F function.
However, when the difference due to the parameter was dealt with by the function in s3fs(whether to prepare multiple or avoid it with macro etc.), I thought that it could be dealt with only by changing the following initialization part.
https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse/blob/master/src/s3fs.cpp#L5199-L5237

Eventually, I think we can do that. (but we should still fix other parts now unfortunately...)

@gaul gaul force-pushed the fuse3 branch 2 times, most recently from c4b0a8d to 483f53c Compare January 29, 2022 03:22
@gaul gaul mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2022
Open
@gaul gaul force-pushed the fuse3 branch 2 times, most recently from ca0ff45 to 62146a1 Compare May 28, 2023 02:30
@gaul gaul force-pushed the fuse3 branch 3 times, most recently from 8705726 to 206ccfd Compare June 25, 2023 22:40
@gaul
Copy link
Member Author

gaul commented Jun 25, 2023

@macos-fuse-t says that this will break the userspace macOS FUSE library and presumably the older kernel-based one. I don't think we should merge this yet.

@gaul
Experiment with FUSE 3
d03a8a1 
This increases the maximum write size from 128 KB to 1 MB and supports
some interesting FUSE_READDIR_PLUS flags.  Remove stale
FUSE_CAP_BIG_WRITES and flag_utime_omit_ok options.  References s3fs-fuse#1159.
@mesaglio
Copy link

mesaglio commented Feb 8, 2024

fuse2 is not having more updates, we dont need to update fuse version to 3?

@ggtakec
Copy link
Member

ggtakec commented Feb 12, 2024

@mesaglio
We have the intention to support fuse3.
However, this does not mean that fuse2 will no longer be supported, so you will need to clean up your code.
Please give me some time. (I think some fixes are needed before that sorting out)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@gaul @ggtakec @mesaglio