Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bcachefs Linux File-System Seeing Performance Improvements, Other Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by curfew View Post
    Another sad overhyped failsystem. I like especially how the slogan for this FS is "the COW filesystem that won't eat your data", yet a couple of paragraphs into the introduction this promise is watered down to mere "bcache already has a reasonably good track record for reliability". Maybe they should rebrand as "the COW filesystem that won't, most of the time, eat your data".

    Let's say I wouldn't host even my browser history on a disk partition running BcacheFS.
    Nonsense. FS that won't eat your data" clearly relates to future point of introduction.
    You shouldn't expect that from a product that hasn't made its way into official kernel .

    For what it is, it looks GREAT. I like it. If I weren't unemployed ATM, I'd definitely send a few € his way.

    As with any great idea, this FS is obviously facing some resistance on its way, but I don't doubt it has a great potential.

    It checks so many boxes on my wishlist and so many options that are not likely to be found on ext4 & Co. in foreseeble future.

    It's obvious that this is fruit of the real engineering and experience and not merely a programing masturbation.




    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by curfew View Post
      Another sad overhyped failsystem. I like especially how the slogan for this FS is "the COW filesystem that won't eat your data", yet a couple of paragraphs into the introduction this promise is watered down to mere "bcache already has a reasonably good track record for reliability". Maybe they should rebrand as "the COW filesystem that won't, most of the time, eat your data".

      Let's say I wouldn't host even my browser history on a disk partition running BcacheFS.
      The lone BcacheFS developer really seems to have an arcimony towards Btrfs and an idée fixe about it "eating your data". That hasn't been true for the past 10 years or so but he keeps repeating that cliche (nearly FUD at this point) as if his life depended on it. Has he asked a Btrfs developer for a date and was turned down, or what?

      The sad part is that the "reasonably good" reliability of BcacheFS is great and all, but the project hasn't even started tackling the parts that are actually hard. That's where the devil is hiding and, yes, is waiting to eat your data. I really wish the project well, more competition is always good all things being equal, but honestly I wouldn't bet on BcacheFS ever becoming anything other than a new tux3.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Brane215 View Post
        Nonsense. FS that won't eat your data" clearly relates to future point of introduction.
        You shouldn't expect that from a product that hasn't made its way into official kernel.
        I haven't seen this kind of stretched interpretation ever before. Usually when people say "I won't steal your candy", it simply means that they will not do that, full stop. It does not mean that they won't steal your candy starting from tomorrow, but today they're still free to beat your ass and eat your chocolates. Jesus christ.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
          Filesystems in development aren't finished yet, more news at 20:00
          Technically software projects aren't finished until they're phased out and EOL'd. But in this case the developer is boasting about e.g. snapshots yet they aren't even technically possible yet, as is evident by looking at the revent Patreon updates. Last December the guy was claiming taking babysteps towards making snapshots possible in the future.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by curfew View Post
            I haven't seen this kind of stretched interpretation ever before. Usually when people say "I won't steal your candy", it simply means that they will not do that, full stop. It does not mean that they won't steal your candy starting from tomorrow, but today they're still free to beat your ass and eat your chocolates. Jesus christ.
            And , interpreted literally, without a context, it obviously won't. It has no mouth to eat anything, so this can be guaranteed.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by curfew View Post
              I haven't seen this kind of stretched interpretation ever before. Usually when people say "I won't steal your candy", it simply means that they will not do that, full stop. It does not mean that they won't steal your candy starting from tomorrow, but today they're still free to beat your ass and eat your chocolates. Jesus christ.
              Can you please stop pretending to not understand how announcements about future milestones work?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by curfew View Post
                Technically software projects aren't finished until they're phased out and EOL'd.
                Crap ones made by webdevelopers, yes, while decent ones with a more clear scope than "disrupting the industry" stabilize eventually and developers stop touching older stuff that is assumed "stable" and safe, and sometimes even put the whole project in "maintenance mode" aka no new features, only bug fixes for years until something changes and a new feature is really needed again.

                But in this case the developer is boasting about e.g. snapshots yet they aren't even technically possible yet
                Is he boasting or is it a goal list? Because there is nothing wrong with having a good list of goals.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by jacob View Post

                  The lone BcacheFS developer really seems to have an arcimony towards Btrfs and an idée fixe about it "eating your data". That hasn't been true for the past 10 years or so but he keeps repeating that cliche (nearly FUD at this point) as if his life depended on it. Has he asked a Btrfs developer for a date and was turned down, or what?
                  Yeah? Maybe cases don't reach actual bugzilla because users give up before devs get around to address their case year-two later.
                  https://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.php/516753-Corrupted-BTRFS
                  I experienced also a corruption on BTRFS with openSUSE Tumbleweed. Assumed it was a kernel problem. I checked smartctl which reported everything fine (i.e. no sector reallocated, which there would be in case of bad sectors right?).
                  I never got a solution on it, I had to reinstall unfortunately and lost some data. I tried recovery using the btrfs tools but with no luck.

                  Bo


                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                    Yeah? Maybe cases don't reach actual bugzilla because users give up before devs get around to address their case year-two later.
                    https://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.php/516753-Corrupted-BTRFS

                    Funny thing about that thread: the OP's hard drive is know to have very bad firmware revisions. Check https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]. Sadly, btrfs depends on correct fsync behavior. Luckily, you can easily deal with them disabling the write cache.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by JustinTurdeau View Post

                      Sounds like a PEBKAC problem to me. I've been running btrfs for 8+ years with zero problems.
                      Sounds like a delusional fanboy problem to me.... Balance your drives and watch it get corrupted....

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X