Bcachefs Submits Lots Of Fixes For "Extreme Filesystem Damage" With Linux 6.9

[ypnos]

Hey, LinAdmin , does this count as one?

here's what I'm talking about, it has all the elements:

- bcache is absolutely perfect
- written by the gods themselves
- bashing btrfs for no good reasons

Well, you didn't ask me, but I will answer anyways. It does not count a bit. It is an obvious troll post.
What is the purpose of your discussion? Wasting your own time?

Who cares about the trolls on Phoronix?

You are on the verge of being one yourself, at least in this thread. Why not just stop the nonsensical discussion.

1. "The cow fs that doesn't eat your data" is wordplay
2. "its author and its fanbois always use to denigrate btrfs against bcachefs" is a very strong statement and I haven't seen Kent denigrating btrfs (maybe you have a statement at hand? as he is "always" doing it?) and I don't know the fanbois and the trolls and what is the intersection of these groups
3. Phoronix reporting on bcachefs is fun, but is apparently too much for some of its readers to handle
4. If the trolling would stop, or the trolls would not be fed, the discussions under these articles would still be much more delightful
5. The majority of fans of Ken's work (not necessarily his attitude) like me are just intrigued by the architecture of the FS and hope for it to benefit Linux, while happily using BTRFS (in my case) or ZFS on their systems today

[Old Grouch]

I owe you nothing. my aim is not to win an argument with you, and I'm not going to waste my time on it.
I don't know what you aim for. If you are looking for the truth, just make your own research.

Quite right, you do owe me nothing.

The fact remains, you have made unsubstantiated claims, and given the opportunity to do so, have not substantiated them, which tends to lower the credibility of the claims. They could be true, but I do not owe you my time to try and substantiate them.

Reasonably often, my posts get held for moderation because they have too many links and trigger spam filters. In such postings, the links are there to help other people substantiate what I say: they could be as simple as easily found links to Wikipedia, or links to postings on other forums or blogs, or links to academic papers.

Making claims without backing them up diminishes your credibility. You might not care, which is fine, but if you want people to take your postings seriously, you might want to reflect upon, and possibly change your posting practice.

Ringraziando per la cortese attenzione che vorrà accordarmi porgo cordiali/distinti saluti.

[Old Grouch]

LOL! I thought it was a more international expression!

quote from: https://learnamo.com/en/idiomatic-expressions-italian/

“Arrampicarsi sugli specchi” (literally “to climb on mirrors”)...

Thank-you for the explanation. It was not quite what I expected from my guesses, so I have learned something.

[IverCoder]

Nobody sane should be using a filesystem until it's been around for at least 5 years. If it's >5 years old and still loosing people's data, then maybe it'll be worth criticism.

This is kinda self-contradictory though. If nobody uses the new file system, how can it gain enough traction for all edge cases and mishaps be reported, fixed, and be accounted for? Automated testing can only do so much to attempt to mimic day-to-day usage.

[energyman]

Btrfs is in development for 15 years now. It is an unstable heap of steaming excrement. Can't do raid5. Fallsover and dies in out of space situations, bugs galore.
bcachefs is in development for 8 years. Kind of usable-ish. Already more reliable than btrfs was at its 8th birthday.
And both sad copies of the true overlord of file systems:

zfs

Really, there is no reason to even use anything else. Apart maybe a mostly static / and the efi boot partition. Write hole? The bane of btrfs on raid5? Does not exist. Stable? You bet. Multi-OS? of course!

Seriously, calm down people. btrfs is a disgrace, it was right from the start when people were told never to use fsck because it would utterly destroy everything. bcachefs is better in that regard. But both can't hold a candle to ZFS. So just use that.

[Developer12]

are you serious?

the thing has been always propaganded as perfect, rigorously programmed and tested to be bug free.
its author and its fanbois always use to denigrate btrfs against bcachefs ("the cow filesystem that won't eat your data")

and now what?

as expected, putting it on the field demonstrated that there's no perfect filesystem (especially until it go battlefield tested for years) and you're all changing the narrative?

butterfs has had over a decade to get it's shit together and I still see new reports of people loosing data to it every week. it would take a serious fanboy to overlook it's rancid smell.

[Developer12]

You mean losing.

Spelling mistakes are coding errors. Try telling a compiler..."but you know what I meant!".

SpeLLIng MiSTAKes are COding ErROrS.

[Developer12]

I think you mean "I don't care one way or the other until the filesystem has had several years of testing.". Documents do not improve from being left untouched in a drawer for several years. The same is true for filesystems or any other code: age does not improve its quality - it needs to be used and any problems found and remedied. This is what is happening.

I dON'T caRE onE Way oR the OtheR unTIL THE FILESySteM Is SevERaL YEarS OLD.

[Old Grouch]

SpeLLIng MiSTAKes are COding ErROrS.

Wry grin.

[Old Grouch]

butterfs has had over a decade to get it's shit together and I still see new reports of people loosing data to it every week. it would take a serious fanboy to overlook it's rancid smell.

I think you have been reading too much e e cummings. I would recommend a perusal of Eats, Shoots & Leaves, or equivalent, also.