Definitely not going anywhere near the comments section on that phoronix article. It's guaranteed to be pure poison.
Tbh, what phoronix comment section isn't pure neurological poison?
Should have never been merged into the kernel lol
I’ve never used bcachefs and only recently read about some of the drama. I wish the project the best but at this point it is hard to beat zfs
zfs is confusing as hell for noobs like me. I only really recently learned how to use btrfs. Is there any real reason to use zfs over btrfs on Linux anyway?
There are some niche features, but if you're not aware of them then no. It's just licence encumbered btrfs for the majority of us.
On top of being confusing, I had my whole proxmox node crash because the ZFS pool randomly crashed out multiple times 🤷♂️
Probably due to the consumer grade nvme I was using it on but... Still why?
Also used a lot of extra ram just to function
I think it's just hardware optimization. You get a ton more pain and risk replacing a drive in zfs vs raid10, but it's more space efficient and flexible to use zfs. This is all academic, because the goal of these systems is a certain level of performance, availability, and data integrity, but not data safety. You need backups (preferably off-site and even off line) backups for that.
No unless your doing raid 5 or 6 not there isn't.
Friends don’t let friends run erasure coding on BTRFS.
Personally, I don’t run anything on BTRFS. I like having my data intact and I also want two parity drives in my pools.
They don't really compete on the same features, but I get what you mean.
Kent is such a dumbass. It's a pitty because it's a great filesystem.
Good 👍
Why?
The developer of bcachefs, Kent Overstreet, has repeatedly failed to abide by the expectations of kernel release schedules, particularly the rc (release candidate) stage, which is supposed to freeze new features until next release.
Kent has open-air arguments with Linus Torvalds about not being able to develop the way he wants to, Linus Torvalds does not like wasting time discussing it with Kent.
IMO, Kent created this situation himself. He'll be happier developing outside upstream anyway.
It should be noted that while some folks have commented that bcachefs was not ready for upstream, several kernel devs have a lot of respect for the technical quality of Kent's work, so I think the argument of whether bcachefs is good or not good is separate from Kent's behaviour as a kernel contributor.
Additionally, Kent got most of his kernel changes needed for bcachefs merged already, so a dkms should be easier to manage now.
Problem is if it isn't in the kernel it well be used by a lot less people.
It was nowhere close to be mature enough to be in the kernel. The developer is nowhere close to be mature enough to be involved in the kernel. It's better for everybody if it is developed separately and maybe integrated again at a later stage when the file system and tooling are considered stable and changes are smaller and less sensitive. CacheFS being in the kernel might mislead people to rely on a filesystem that is still experimental and under heavy development. Personally I am looking forward to see it mature because I'd love to run it on my file storage home server when it is stable enough.
I have been relying on the filesystem. It is excellent. It is mature enough.
Sadly, the lead dev for bcachefs is not mature enough.
I agree, on both statements.
It is easily stable enough for experimental use.
It was nowhere close to be mature enough to be in the kernel. The developer is nowhere close to be mature enough to be involved in the kernel
what independently verifiable condition(s) will satisfy these requirements?
That the developer himself finds it absolutely necessary to push new code outside the window for upcoming versions of the kernel is a pretty good indication.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0