Bcachefs Linux File-System Seeing Performance Improvements, Other Progress

[nomadewolf]

Just talking about my own experience here, bcachefs might be overhyped on its stability promises, but at least in my own testing I've never lost any data on it. btrfs on the other hand has a 100% failure rate in my experience. Literally every single time I'd heard enough good news about btrfs to trigger me into giving it another try, I'd run into corrupted filesystem data. So at least in my own experiments bcachefs has proven more stable than btrfs and in fact btrfs has proven to be the most unreliable filesystem of -all- time.

The difference being, BTRFS is supposedly in 'ready', and bcachefs isn't even mainlined yet...

[nomadewolf]

I have submitted code to the Linux kernel. It's barely any different than any other large scale project of that kind. The fact you don't realize this means there's a 99% likelihood that you're speaking as someone who's never submitted anything.

Here's Linus' response to the last mainlining attempt:



That is straight up incompetence, not some kind of honest mistake made while navigating the "procedural bureaucracy".

I'm not trying to shit on his efforts or say the filesystem is bad. I'm just serving as a much needed reality check. What a developer says about his own code (which has already attracted $2k/month in donations) and hard, cold reality are two completely different things. He's always going to talk it up and compare it favourably to the competition, for reasons that should be obvious.

So the dev made poor comments? That doesn't sound like a disaster. Sure it's not perfect, but eveyone knows Linus strives for perfection and he expects everything to be impecable.
Kent took a shortcut and learned the hard way...
His code and FS may still be very well top notch.
I will wait before i make my judgment.
And of course he is talking up his own project. What did you honestly expect?...
My hope is that we actually get a good FS out of this.

[JustinTurdeau]

His code and FS may still be very well top notch.

It may or may not be. I was just pointing out the fact that there's a world of difference between simply making claims on a website and actually living up to them. The fanboys on here were getting a little too high on vaporware.

[duby229]

It may or may not be. I was just pointing out the fact that there's a world of difference between simply making claims on a website and actually living up to them. The fanboys on here were getting a little too high on vaporware.

Nonsense, -YOU- are exhibiting fanboyism -for- btrfs.... Wow, what a retarded way to call the kettle black.... You fanboy for the least stable filesystem of all time and then call someone else a fanboy for well wishing an almost definitely better alternative......

[duby229]

The difference being, BTRFS is supposedly in 'ready', and bcachefs isn't even mainlined yet...

Everything has a beginning, so had btrfs at one point in time as well....

[JustinTurdeau]

You fanboy for the least stable filesystem of all time and then call someone else a fanboy for well wishing an almost definitely better alternative......

Literally every post of yours I run into is uninformed stupidity or trolling. If it were possible to block you I would have done so already.

[duby229]

Literally every post of yours I run into is uninformed stupidity or trolling. If it were possible to block you I would have done so already.

Pot, ARE you black????

[pal666]

Just talking about my own experience here, bcachefs might be overhyped on its stability promises, but at least in my own testing I've never lost any data on it. btrfs on the other hand has a 100% failure rate in my experience.

i'll take facebook millions of btrfs servers statistics over yours. but you still can be useful: to serve as bad example. i.e. how to not use btrfs

[pal666]

Filesystems in development aren't finished yet, more news at 20:00

lol, are those stability claims for current state or for some imaginary future version? then every filesystem is rock-solid in some far bright future

[pal666]

First, the reliability track record was about bcache, not bcachefs.

i.e. it was used to mislead users and backers?

Second. The filesystem is under development, pre-release, v0.0.0, whatever else do you call it. The "won't eat your data" part relates to its architecture and development model — which, by author's intention, will translate to better reliability once the major groundlaying development is done and the filesystem is actually released.

what are you trying to imply, that every other filesystem has architecture and development model aimed to eat users data? that's same bullshit misleading users and backers. all filesystems have intention to not eat data. but people make mistakes from time to time. i.e. all bcachefs claims are load of bullshit