A New Linux File-System Aims For Speed While Having ZFS/Btrfs-Like Features

[kebabbert]

You can't compare 2 things if you only know 1. Also I'm not sure why you don't consider reliability a feature but it would help with your confusion if you did. BcacheFS was just announced and is still in an early testing level release phase so of course you're not going to find it in much filesystem reliability research if any at all but if you actually read about it before you complained the author is wrong you'll find BcacheFS either already does or plans on supporting all of those things you linked to why ZFS is so reliable. It's goal is just to do it faster.

I meant that he considers ext4 and xfs reliable, well, they are not as proven by comp sci researchers in my link i posted earlier. Ext4 is unreliable so why aim for ext4 "reliability"? Zfs is reliable, he should aim for zfs reliability, not for ext4 which is proven unreliable

[kebabbert]

That's nonsense. Designing an uber-reliable filesystem is not any harder than designing a super-fast filesystem. The challenge is to design a filesystem that is reliable AND fast.

*not* ZFS, because in may scenarios its performance is indeed far less than Acceptable.

You are ignorant. It is very very difficult to design a reliable filesystem, as CERN explains in my link. They say that even very expensive enterprise storage servers get data corruption, in a research paper. First of all, you MUST have a monolithic filesystem, controlling the entire storage stack. You can nor have a separate filesystem, separate volume manager, separate raid system, etc. That is inherently unsafe (read my link on part "data corruption"). If bcache is a separate filesystem, it is toast you can say for sure. Zfs is monolithic, and that is why it is safe.

Second, zfs scales to 55petabyte installations, with 1tb/sec bandwidth at sequioua super computer centre, i would not call it slow.