Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bcachefs Might Be Ready For Upstreaming In Linux This Year

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

  • Bcachefs Might Be Ready For Upstreaming In Linux This Year

    Phoronix: Bcachefs Might Be Ready For Upstreaming In Linux This Year

    The Bcachefs file-system that was born out of the Linux kernel's block cache code has over the past few years matured greatly. Now in 2022 the core fundamentals of the file-system are "pretty close to done" and will hopefully be mainlined this calendar year into the Linux kernel...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Really looking forward to seeing the release, especially fond of Kent's attitude in developing bcachefs (i.e. get the core design principles right before releasing it).

    Comment


    • #3
      Wow, wow, wow! Looking forward to it! The guy's perfectionist and he's been developing it on its own.

      Comment


      • #4
        Bomb! I've been waiting for it!

        Comment


        • #5
          bcachefs allegedly at one time shared about 80% of the code with bcache.

          Jens Axboe asked if there was still a clean separation between bcachefs and bcache. Overstreet said that there was; roughly 80% of the code is shared.

          Comment


          • #6
            There are still a bunch of severe bugs in bcache that haven't been fixed for years, anyone jumping on bcachefs straight away is just asking to repeat the early btrfs experience.

            It's a single dev, working on a filesystem with about as many features as ZFS - calm your expectations

            Comment


            • #7
              It already solves one of the current limitations of btrfs. It allows to set the number of replicas on a subvolume/folder basis.

              Ideally I want to have a single pool of let’s say 4 disks. And then set the replicas for for stuff like pictures and documents to 3. And for downloaded media I would use a single replica, since I can afford to lose that data during a disk failure.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jannik2099 View Post
                There are still a bunch of severe bugs in bcache that haven't been fixed for years, anyone jumping on bcachefs straight away is just asking to repeat the early btrfs experience.

                It's a single dev, working on a filesystem with about as many features as ZFS - calm your expectations
                but compared to zfs it has many benefits. esp for soho. eg different striping/mirror strategies for different folders, tiered storage (eg m2, ssd, hdd).

                so well.... i am *really* looking forward to use it. i have backups anyway (they are needed with zfs too)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jannik2099 View Post
                  There are still a bunch of severe bugs in bcache that haven't been fixed for years
                  It depends on the reason: if they had not been fixed because a major rewrite of some related subsystem is planned that would make sense in an experimental fs.
                  ## VGA ##
                  AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
                  Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by amxfonseca View Post
                    It already solves one of the current limitations of btrfs. It allows to set the number of replicas on a subvolume/folder basis.

                    Ideally I want to have a single pool of let’s say 4 disks. And then set the replicas for for stuff like pictures and documents to 3. And for downloaded media I would use a single replica, since I can afford to lose that data during a disk failure.
                    The usefulness of this seems to depend a lot on how gracefully the OS can handle missing or partially missing data (some extents of a file may be available and others gone after a disc replacement).

                    At first glance such a setup just looks like additional headaches and not particularly useful in practice.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X