Re: git fuse
- From
- Drew Northup <n1xim.email@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 25, 2013, 23:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAM9Z-nmVaBDcRABMRJGLdFVDSLRGL31jMS9KpaWiQ4y_SYONdg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <201312192215.01103.thomas@koch.ro>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Hi, > > I'm thinking about using Git for web application deployment and thought that I > wouldn't even need to checkout a worktree if I could access the bare git repo > via fuse.
Thomas, Given that gitweb (and more than a few other similar tools) doesn't use FUSE and works on bare repositories I question why you think you'd need (or want) to introduce the additional layer.
> What would be the performance impact? Once the files are in the filesystem cache > it shouldn't matter anymore, how fast the git fuse layer is, should it?
If your concern is caching, it should be implemented upon already rendered / prepared objects whenever possible--frequently not a file system level implementation. This is a design concern that has no specific requirement whatsoever to do with FUSE (or for that matter, with most of the VFS layer when accessing raw disk--as VFS itself is highly optimized already).
I am not qualified to answer questions about FUSE use of the VFS cache.
I would strongly consider using a tool such as Varnish if you are concerned about performance when serving static or semi-static content (may it reside in a Git repo or elsewhere). The architectural concerns of your web-app should probably guide your design in this sort of direction anyway if it will be expected to sustain notable throughput over time.
I hope that helps.
(If you want to discuss this further it would be worth considering if your questions are Git questions or web-app design questions. The latter should be taken elsewhere.)
-- -Drew Northup -------------------------------------------------------------- "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59