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.

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

Expose arbitrary FUSE mount options #6

Open
jmmv opened this issue Feb 9, 2023 · 1 comment · May be fixed by buildbarn/bb-remote-execution#111
Open

Expose arbitrary FUSE mount options #6

jmmv opened this issue Feb 9, 2023 · 1 comment · May be fixed by buildbarn/bb-remote-execution#111

Comments

@jmmv
Copy link

jmmv commented Feb 9, 2023

I'm playing with bb-clientd and observing that performance doesn't seem great in some cases. From past experience with similar pprof profiles, I wanted to try passing some additional mount options to FUSE to check if they make any difference, but this is currently not possible.

Right now, the configuration offers a way to set AllowOther and DirectMount but nothing else. What do you think about extending this to support other options exposed by FUSE according to fuse.MountOptions? The proto would expose the individual options, or it would simply allow passing a collection of strings via the Options field, as these are passed verbatim to the FUSE mount.

@EdSchouten
Copy link
Member

I’m fine with that, but please limit yourself to the features you actually need. There is no need to add support for all of these options.

My preference is to pass through options verbatim if possible. Imposing a certain workflow only adds more code, while reducing flexibility.

jmmv added a commit to Snowflake-Labs/bb-remote-execution that referenced this issue Mar 22, 2023
Extend the FUSE mount options to support passing a collection of textual
options that are directly passed to fusermount.

Fixes buildbarn/bb-clientd#6.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants