Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bcachefs Might Be Ready For Upstreaming In Linux This Year

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

  • M@yeulC
    replied
    Also, don't hesitate to support the author on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs

    Leave a comment:


  • M@yeulC
    replied
    Nice, I'm really looking forward to it, especially with its tiered storage capabilities, as well as forward error-correction (roughly similar to raid5/6, on a file basis).

    Although I'll have to revisit my backup plans, etc.

    Having a `btrfs-send`-like tool is nice, I wish borg leveraged that.

    Leave a comment:


  • shmerl
    replied
    I'm surprised Kent didn't get more backing. Looking forward to eventually replacing btrfs with it!

    Anyone who wants to support the development, head here: https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs

    Leave a comment:


  • piorunz
    replied
    Bcachefs - a new Btrfs?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannik2099
    replied
    Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post
    One of the best things about bcachefs is that it works with shingled mechanical harddrives. Therefore you can create a nas using those cheaper drives using bcachefs.
    btrfs also has support for host-managed SMR as of 5.13 or so - not sure about zfs

    Leave a comment:


  • hajj_3
    replied
    One of the best things about bcachefs is that it works with shingled mechanical harddrives. Therefore you can create a nas using those cheaper drives using bcachefs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannik2099
    replied
    Originally posted by darkbasic View Post

    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.
    I am talking about bugs in bache, the block caching layer that has been in the mainline kernel for years, NOT about bcachefs.

    As it is there are still rare, data corrupting bugs in bcache. Also many occasions where it bugs out and you have to reset a device, or cannot mount one anymore without the cache drive present.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deathcrow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • flower
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X