• blashork [she/her]
    ·
    9 months ago

    Finally, I've been waiting forever for this. btrfs is a mess and zfs in oracle jail forever. Finally we cna have good COW on linux without stupid hoops.

  • Kristof12@lemmy.ml
    ·
    9 months ago

    I am waiting for this alternative for btrfs

  • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    9 months ago

    The company that's been funding bcachefs for the past 6 years has, unfortunately, been hit by a business downturn - they've been affected by the strikes in the media production industry. As such, I'm now having to look for new funding.

    Hopefully they find a new company to fund the development of bcachefs. Btrfs has major funding from facebook and others, so hopefully there'll be interest in bcachefs since it has some interesting features over btrfs (namely caching and configurable data placement).

  • I just read through the documentation, and didn't see any mention (in particular, on the mount options page) of wear leveling. btrfs makes an effort to use SSDs well; how does bcachefs fare in this respect?

    • blashork [she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      bcache is inherently designed to be an ssd cache that sits in front of slower bigger disks. Bcachefs is an extension of this into it's own filesystem. iirc the words of the bcache creator were: 'we've implemented 80% of a filesystem here, might as well go the rest of the way'. So how much it thrashes a disk is based on what position you give it in the architecture. The caching ssds are going to be used heavily, taking advantage of their fast random access to manage all random accesses, while sequential operations generally go to the slower disk that's set as the background device. The background disks will tend to be accessed less.

      So yeah, it's based on what kind of disk and position in the bcache, and what caching options you enable. If you want to look into it further, bcache is fs agnostic, so if you can find some tests that have been done for bcache enabled for classic linux filesystems, like ext4 and xfs, that include hardware degradation info, you'll probably end up with similar usage and hardware wear with the actual bcachefs.

  • django@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    9 months ago

    Finally! I hope the encryption will get an audit in the near future. 🙂

    • DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, although the neat part is that you can configure how much replication it uses on a per-file basis: for example, you can set your personal photos to be replicated three times, but have a tmp directory with no replication at all on the same filesystem.