bcache is super stable, bcachefs won't have the problems btrfs has (yes, has, not had). Because the model is sane, bcachefs is finally going to be COW, checksummed, and have acceleration topology of various disks. Have some old SSD you don't use? Add it and it's now a write landing zone, or a cache. Wow such smart.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bcachefs Submitted For Review - Next-Gen CoW File-System Aims For Mainline
Collapse
X
-
The Bcachefs kernel driver weighs in at around two thousand lines of code
The submitted patches are not a bcachefs driver, these are "all the non fs/bcachefs/ patches".
No way on Earth a filesystem driver of such complexity could weigh in at 2 KLOC.Last edited by avis; 10 May 2023, 04:00 PM.
- Likes 10
Comment
-
I'd wait to say it's super stable...just the fact that nobody uses it doesn't make it very stable, but when lots of users try it that's where you'll find out if it's that stable. This happens for any software and especially for file systems.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
As much as this might be great, no one is going to commercially use a one man created filesystem with a bus ratio of 1. There’s no support and no one to maintain it if something happens to the developer.
xfs, btrfs and ext4 all have commercial support , there’s enough commercial usage (esp with xfs) that if need be someone will be paid to mantain it
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by Britoid View PostAs much as this might be great, no one is going to commercially use a one man created filesystem with a bus ratio of 1. There’s no support and no one to maintain it if something happens to the developer.
Edit: fix middle-click paste ugh
- Likes 7
Comment
-
Originally posted by Britoid View PostAs much as this might be great, no one is going to commercially use a one man created filesystem with a bus ratio of 1. There’s no support and no one to maintain it if something happens to the developer.
- Likes 11
Comment
-
-
A bug list that's "too long" to enumerate is by no means "stable". Just because it gets included in Linus' tree doesn't make it "stable". Linus' tree itself is not stable. It regularly has data corrupting bugs and sometimes subtle errors that throw off calculations.
All that said, I'm more curious what bcachefs brings to the table in the form of minimizing write amplification on SSDs. We already have FS that do the listed features such as CoW, integrity hashing, etc, but only two that I'm aware of specifically address write amplification on flash media. Of those two, one highly recommends battery backed storage because it doesn't cover power loss scenarios since it was designed for smart phones and tablets.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by zexelon View Postspecifically in a time period were RAID 5 was also a buzzword that everyone was jumping on... unfortunately this led to the discovery of a core design problem (that still exists today) in the RAID 5/6 implementation of BTRFS.
What makes btrfs different is that btrfs developers actually loudly warn users about this RAID5 design flaw that is not specific to btrfs but to RAID5.
mdadm RAID5 also has the same issue, because it's an issue specific to RAID5 design, not the the implementation. The workaround provided by mdadm to that RAID5 design flaw is named ppl:
ppl For RAID5 only, Partial Parity Log is used to close the write hole and eliminate resync.
I don't know why this myth of “btrfs having flawed RAID5” is so much alive while it's RAID5 that is flawed to begin with, and that's not btrfs' fault.
If one does a RAID5 without using btrfs purposedly to avoid the flaws that btrfs RAID5 suffers from, that one is very likely running an as-much-flawed-RAID5 but without knowing it.
Illusion of security is worst than lack of security.
- Likes 7
Comment
Comment