Improved Btrfs Scrub Code Readied For Linux 6.4, ~10% Faster

[fitzie]

That's a decent video, thanks!

I don't see issues with licenses if you:

1. Are either willing to build module from source (dkms works reasonably well), or just use Ubuntu (ZFS in Ubuntu is totally fine, this is what I use)
2. Aren't bothered by the possible OSS licensing incompatibility yourself (I would note there that the restrictions of the licenses apply to stuff that's, well, distributed, in source code or binary; doing this mix at home without distribution doesn't count at all).

Not accommodating random disk sizes is perhaps the thing I don't like about ZFS (BTRFS can do that).

I agree, being able to grow the raid by adding new disks new size is a key feature for home users. I do like how unraid handles this, but of course their solution is proprietary.

I use openzfs (and btrfs and bcachefs) but I do think licensing is indirectly a hindrance. First, it prevents the filesystem from being worked on by experienced filesystem developers (at least in linux land), it also means that you have to delay following upstream kernels. And I suspect it also makes companies that might otherwise fund features like raidz expansion from getting involved. Btw - I remember when zfs came out, and it had significant deficiencies, but zfs made it through them pretty well. Sun was lucky to have brilliant developers, and put significant investment into it to see it through those early days. For better or worse linux filesystems have to take a radically different evolutionary path, and we may never see an investment like this again, because the cloud prefer investing in redundancy over the network rather then contained to a single host. I'm fairly pessimistic, but that doesn't keep me from funding bcachefs development

[vladpetric]

I agree, being able to grow the raid by adding new disks new size is a key feature for home users. I do like how unraid handles this, but of course their solution is proprietary.

I use openzfs (and btrfs and bcachefs) but I do think licensing is indirectly a hindrance. First, it prevents the filesystem from being worked on by experienced filesystem developers (at least in linux land), it also means that you have to delay following upstream kernels. And I suspect it also makes companies that might otherwise fund features like raidz expansion from getting involved. Btw - I remember when zfs came out, and it had significant deficiencies, but zfs made it through them pretty well. Sun was lucky to have brilliant developers, and put significant investment into it to see it through those early days. For better or worse linux filesystems have to take a radically different evolutionary path, and we may never see an investment like this again, because the cloud prefer investing in redundancy over the network rather then contained to a single host. I'm fairly pessimistic, but that doesn't keep me from funding bcachefs development

Yeah, RAID offers redundancy at the controller/box level, whereas object stores (S3, GCS, etc) achieve redundancy at a cluster/network level ... for a highly distributed system that's typically more useful ... (I do understand where they're coming from).

Anyway, thanks for your contributions!