Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xani_ 1340 days ago
How's that compared to sshfs (wth cache/kernel_cache enabled) ? I've used it few times where I had need to dev like that and it was generally just fine for just editing a file, where performance tanked was doing a lot of file I/O at once (say updating git repo)
2 comments
ta988 1340 days ago
Advantage of mutagen is that it works on OSes that can't do sshfs. It felt faster too especially with a lot of IOs like node modules or other things that touch a lot of files. But I never ran a benchmark , it is so much faster by at least a factor 10 than whatever is in docker desktop when populating node modules that I don't even need a benchmark.
link
xenoscopic 1340 days ago
The benchmarks will likely be highly dependent on your use case, but SSHFS-style virtual filesystems (specifically those backed by FUSE) typically have significantly lower performance than something like an APFS/ext4/NTFS filesystem that Mutagen could target with synchronization.

All of your readdir()/stat()/open()/read()-style calls will suffer significantly on virtual filesystems, and unfortunately these get hit a lot by things like IDEs (e.g. when indexing code), compilers, and dynamic language runtimes (especially PHP).

No tool is at fault in this chain, of course, it's a hard problem. Mutagen is able to offer better performance by being a little less dynamic and creating "real" copies of all the files on a more persistent filesystem.

link