Build your own filesystem, hellowordFS.c in 100 lines!
fuse.sourceforge.net
fuse.sourceforge.net
Here is one for instance in Ruby (Hello World) http://www.debian-administration.org/article/Creating_Filesy...
Only disclaimer, as it runs in Userspace it's quite a bit slower than its kernel space twin.
According to [1], NTFS-3G (FUSE) is basically on par with XFS (native), only slightly slower on rewriting. ZFS on FUSE reads almost as fast and lacks in write speed, which is reasonable---it's not optimised in the slightest and ZFS has a reputation for being somewhat slow even on Solaris, where it is native. Not too shabby, I think. (It's a benchmark, though. Your mileage may vary.)
1: http://www.csamuel.org/2007/04/25/comparing-ntfs-3g-to-zfs-f...
That guy is really benchmarking the disk, not the filesystem. If you benchmark things that test the filesystem layer on its operations---that is, make it do lots of things to metadata but not read or write much actual data---FUSE gets the crap beaten out of it.
As an example, write a no-op filesystem in FUSE and a no-op filesystem under the VFS, and run postmark[1] on it. You should get some pretty drastic results.
My professor has something called FiST[2] (like yacc for filesystem devs) that gets about 1-2% overhead over a native FS, and I believe one of his papers contains a comparison with FUSE that shows how bad FUSE is, but I don't remember it.
[1]: http://www.shub-internet.org/brad/FreeBSD/postmark.html
https://bitbucket.org/stucchio/mp3fs/
$ ls music
01 Ghosts I.flac 03 Ghosts I.wav mp3file.mp3
02 Ghosts I.wav 04 Ghosts I.ogg list_of_music.txt
$ mkdir mp3music
$ mp3fs music mp3music
$ ls mp3music
01 Ghosts I.mp3 03 Ghosts I.mp3 mp3file.mp3
02 Ghosts I.mp3 04 Ghosts I.mp3
$ cp mp3music/*.mp3 /media/mp3_player_that_doesnt_play_flac_or_ogg_files