Originally posted by Chugworth
View Post
OpenZFS 2.3-rc4 Released With Linux 6.12 LTS Support
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
In tree you have the kernel community assuring the quality. Out of tree you have you assuring it.
Originally posted by varikonniemi View PostYou can be as activist and zfsist as you want, you won't convince that it's better to use something that has not been vetted by the kernel community compared to if it has been.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by varikonniemi View Postand we have already seen it, zfs had a really bad silent data corruption bug, while an experimental bcachefs has had absolutely no bug that resulted in data corruption.
This is extremely bad for zfs, since it should have shaken out all bugs decades ago, compared to a newcomer that has spotless track record since being merged. While being experimental. Meaning the author is not still completely satisfied with it, but it still has proven better than zfs
The good news about the openzfs bug you are referring too was that it was very hard to trigger. That is the reason why it was discovered and solved so late. You had to write to a file and copy that file while you write to it. Example: copy A -> B and simultaneously cp B -> C while copy process for A is still running. This could lead to data corruption if both copy processes meet certain timing constraints.
Anyways, you can pick on this one bug. Good for you. But you are just showing that you have no background. Talking about bcachefs and that it has no bugs and that it is super and this is because the developer is a star and the kernel community has the best quality assurance is just ridiculous.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
Don't you think it's expected to be a to-and-forth battle seeing all the insane comments seen here against a truly next-gen filesystem? Only because some fanboys like to cling onto the monstrous piece of out of kernel code instead of looking at the facts. Most people can understand that having several times the amount of code to achieve similar features means there is several times more bugs in there.
(this applies to btrfs also, it's so huge one cannot come to other conclusion than the design being wrong, and force is used to extend it)
You are totally neglecting the flaws in the kernels QA process. You are saying that this is better than anything else out-of-tree. Which is nonsens and shows that you have no background.
And comparing bcachefs with ZFS is also pointless. bcachefs does not even support scrub yet. Which means that you can not check your data. Not to mention RAID or encryption. bcachefs is just a basic filesystem. That is it. It is a COW filesystem and it happens to have checksums. That is a good start but still a long way to go.
bcachefs has a very small footprint yet. Not many people use it. The big bugs will be revealed when bcachefs reaches the mainstream and when it supports more sophisticated features like RAID or encryption.
Also, you should realize that bcachefs is just a one man show. While ZFS is developed by dozens of developers supported by dozens of companies. Your trust in the bcachefs one man show seems odd to me. I would even call it unprofessional.
Comment
-
-
I am not neglecting any flaws, i just objectively can see they are much smaller than any other project of similar scale. Meaning it's the best QA out there. And because of it, even if it causes friction and disagreements, even strongly opinionated projects like bcachefs stay grounded and don't come with silent data corruption like what happened in the early days when it was out of tree.
Go circlejerk your ZFS outdated design in bsd forums or wherever guys that appreciate being corporate drones gather. Here i would appreciate sticking to the facts, like appreciating a completely new design that provides several guarantees. And only one of them is the elegance which results in lower LOC and thus less bugs.
Comment
-
Comment