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

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

I think the most interesting aspect of this is that 3 other developers contributed fixes.

[Quackdoc]

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?

Man sees comment on phoronix, thinks comment represents all of phoronix

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

I'll try it again once the issues mounting native encrypted pools are resolved and send / receive is a thing. On a tangentially related note, ZFS on Tumbleweed / Slowroll won't always need to rely on zypper locks for new kernels...

foo@bar:~> zypper se -s kernel-longterm

S | Name                  | Type    | Version    | Arch   | Repository
--+-----------------------+---------+------------+--------+----------------------
  | kernel-longterm       | package | 6.6.23-1.1 | x86_64 | Main Repository (OSS)
  | kernel-longterm-devel | package | 6.6.23-1.1 | x86_64 | Main Repository (OSS)
  | kernel-longterm-vdso  | package | 6.6.23-1.1 | x86_64 | Main Repository (OSS)​

[cynic]

Man sees comment on phoronix, thinks comment represents all of phoronix

there are *hundreds* comments on Phoronix bashing btrfs and depiciting bcachefs as the ultimate-absolutely-perfect fs from the gods.

[Quackdoc]

there are *hundreds* comments on Phoronix bashing btrfs and depiciting bcachefs as the ultimate-absolutely-perfect fs from the gods.

and I can find many comments bashing on bcachefs and kent.

[cynic]

and I can find many comments bashing on bcachefs and kent.

so what? is it related with the original topic?

[mdedetrich]

there are *hundreds* comments on Phoronix bashing btrfs and depiciting bcachefs as the ultimate-absolutely-perfect fs from the gods.

You are being sensationalist, I can barely remember any such comments.

What people are saying is the biggest difference between bcachefs and btrfs is that bcachefs has a better design foundation compared to btfrs which should lead to a better filesystem. btrfs design philosophy appeared to be rushed and haphazard, which is why for example RAID 5/6 isn't properly supported because it would require changes to on disk format and even worse they didn't warn users about this when creating a partition up until somewhat recently.

Don't get me wrong, btrfs seems to work great for the usecases that the big companies use it for (i.e. RAID 10) but the developers appeared to both throw untested extra stuff onto it and not test things properly before being submitted into tree (and unlike bcachefs this happened in cases when massive companies where using it, not when it was newly added into the kernel half a year ago)

[LinAdmin]

there are *hundreds* comments on Phoronix bashing btrfs and depiciting bcachefs as the ultimate-absolutely-perfect fs from the gods.

Please give at least 5 URLs of your *hundreds*. Thx.

[LinAdmin]

I won't use BcacheFS before they have implemented Raid-1 with scrub-tool.
That configuration works on BtrFS for years.

[cynic]

Please give at least 5 URLs of your *hundreds*. Thx.

DYOR, thanks