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...

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...efs-2022-Hopes

  • #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