Re: [Dazuko-help] Relation to libav/RedirFS?

[Frantisek Hrbata]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:03:58 +0100
John Ogness <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 2009-02-12, Des Gregory <address@hidden> wrote:
> > ... so I guess my question now, being not too technical myself, is
> > "Which should I use for ant-virus: Dazuko or REDIRFS? or both?"
> >  
> > Any ideas?
> 
> You should use whichever your anti-virus software needs. If the
> software supports both, then you will need to see which one fits your
> kernel. Depending on which anti-virus software you choose and which
> kernel you run, there probably won't be a choice anyway.
> 
> But perhaps I can say a few things about Dazuko, DazukoFS, and
> RedirFS...
> 
> Dazuko has the longest running track record, so it can be considered
> fairly stable. But it does not work with newer kernels.
> 
> DazukoFS and RedirFS are both relatively new (with DazukoFS being
> _very_ new), so they may still have some stability issues.
> 
> From a user's perspective, RedirFS is easier to configure than
> DazukoFS. RedirFS simply needs to be loaded, whereas DazukoFS must
> also be set up to stack (in /etc/fstab).
> 
> RedirFS should allow the system to run exactly as before, whereas
> DazukoFS does not support some filesystem features such as
> memory-mapped writing.
> 
> RedirFS may be faster than DazukoFS because it hooks the real inodes
> rather than adding another inode layer. But this is also dependent on
> the RedirFS and DazukoFS implementations and there have not been any
> tests to show this.
> 
> DazukoFS has been shown to be _much_ faster than Dazuko:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dazuko-devel/2008-09/msg00002.html
> 
> John Ogness
> 

I will just add that dazukofs is using stackable filesystem approach,
which was already accepted by kernel community(ecryptfs, unionfs).
The redirfs hooks file system operations in vfs objects. So from this
point of view dazukofs is using more acceptable approach then redirfs.

-FH