Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 400 posts

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#181

Post by motorest »

koverstreet wrote: post #126
immibis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem was that you weren't following the rules. The rules were clear about the right time to merge things so they get in the next version, and if you don't, they will have to get in the version after that. I don't know the specific time since I'm not a kernel developer, but there was one. Linus is trying to run the release cycle on a strict schedule, like a train station. You are trying to delay the train so th…

It's a bugfix, and bugfixes are allowed at and time - weighing regression risk against where we're at in the cycle. It was a very high severity bug, low regression risk for the fix, and we were at rc3.

> It's a bugfix, and bugfixes are allowed at and time (...)

I'm afraid you sound like you're trying to gaslight everyone in the thread.

https://news.itsfoss.com/linux-kernel-bcachefs-drop/

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#182

Post by bigstrat2003 »

cmurf wrote: post #29
betaby wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

btrfs was unusable in multi disk setup for kernels 6.1 and older. Didn't try since then. How's stable btrs today in such setups? Also see https://www.phoronix.com/news/Josef-Bacik-Leaves-Meta

Absurd to claim it’s unusable without any qualification whatsoever. Single, dup, raid0, raid1, raid10 have been usable and stable for a decade or more.

I lost my BTRFS RAID-1 array a year or two ago when one of my drives went offline. Just poof, data gone and I had to rebuild. I am not saying that it happens all the time, but I wouldn't say it's completely bulletproof either.

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#183

Post by cyphar »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #147
koverstreet wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZFS deserves an absolutely legendary amount of respect for showing us all what a modern filesystem should be - the papers they wrote, alone, did the entire filesystem world such a massive service by demonstrating the possibilities of full data integrity and why we want it, and then they showed it could be done. But there's a ton of room for improvement beyond what ZFS did. ZFS was a very conservative design in a lot…

> But there's a ton of room for improvement beyond what ZFS did. Say more? I can't say I've really thought that much about filesystems and I'm curious in what direction you think they could be taken if time and budget weren't an issue.

You're replying to the bcachefs author, I expect his response will be fairly obvious. ;)

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#184

Post by olavgg »

pezezin wrote: post #164
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compression seems silly in the modern world. Virtually everything is already compressed. IIRC my laptop's zpool has a 1.2x compression ratio; it's worth doing. At a previous job, we had over a petabyte of postgres on ZFS and saved real money with compression. Hilariously, on some servers we also improved performance because ZFS could decompress reads faster than the disk could read.

How do you get a PostgreSQL database to grow to one petabyte? The maximum table size is 32 TB o_O

Probably by using partitioning.

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#185

Post by procaryote »

NewJazz wrote: post #19

FreeBSD is giving me a sultry look as I ponder my NAS build.

Fwiw, I'm running a NAS on btrfs (on top of mdadm raid as I don't fully trust the btrfs raid, and the recovery tools seem worse). It seems to be working well so far.

Being able to do snapshots easily is really nice. I have a script that makes hourly snapshots and keeps the N latest, which protects me against a bunch of pebkac errors

I do periodic backups to non-btrfs storage though. I need backups anyway so it seemed like an easy way to de-risk

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#186

Post by procaryote »

betaby wrote: post #11
LeoPanthera wrote: post #6

It's orphaned in Debian as well, but I'm not sure what significant advantages it has over btrfs, which is very stable these days.

btrfs was unusable in multi disk setup for kernels 6.1 and older. Didn't try since then. How's stable btrs today in such setups? Also see https://www.phoronix.com/news/Josef-Bacik-Leaves-Meta

If you don't trust btrfs raid it's perfectly possible to run btrfs on top of lvm or mdadm raid. Then you have btrfs in a prety happy case single device mode. Also the recovery tooling is more well known and tested

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#187

Post by icar »

qalmakka wrote: post #141

The whole situation is moronic at best. Linux needs a decent modern filesystem in tree. ZFS would easily be it, but unfortunately Sun decided back in the '00s to fuck Linux because they wanted to push Solaris instead. Little they knew ZFS ended up being FreeBSD top feature for years. Btrfs is constantly eating people data, it's a bad joke nowadays. Right now on Linux you're basically forced to constantly deal with ou…

I know it's not the same, but close enough for me: lvm + xfs works wonders and it's rock solid.

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#188

Post by guenthert »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #83
ajross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. This war was stale like nine years ago. At this point the originally-beaten horse has decomposed into soil. My general reply to this is: 1. The dm layer gives you cow/snapshots for any filesystem you want already and has for more than a decade. Some implementations actually use it for clever trickery like updates, even. Anyone who has software requirements in this space (as distinct from "wants to yell on the in…

For me bcachefs provides a feature no other filesystem on Linux has: automated tiered storage. I've wanted this ever since I got an SSD more than 10 years ago, but filesystems move slow. A block level cache like bcache (not fs) and dm-cache handles it less ideally, and doesn't leave the SSD space as usable space. As a home user, 2TB of SSDs is 2TB of space I'd rather have. ZFS's ZIL is similar, not leaving it as usab…

> automated tiered storage. I've wanted this ever since I got an SSD more than 10 years ago, but filesystems move slow.

You were not alone. However, things changed, namely SSD continued to become cheaper and grew in capacity. I'd think most active data is these days on SSDs (certainly in most desktops, most servers which aren't explicit file or DB servers and all mobile and embedded devices), the role of spinning rust being more and more archiving (if found in a system at all).

Re: Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

#190

Post by motorest »

koverstreet wrote: post #142
tarruda wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not good when politics get in the way of good engineering. Regardless of differing points of view on the situation, I think everyone can agree that bcachefs being actively updated on Linus tree is a good thing, right? If you were able to work at your own pace, and someone else took the responsibility of pulling your changes at a pace that satisfies Linus, wouldn't that solve the problem of Linux having a good m…

At this time, I don't think so. We were never able to get any sane and consistent policy on bugfixes, and I don't have high hopes that anyone else will have better luck. The XFS folks have had their own issues with interference, leading to burnout - they're on their third maintainer, and it's really not good for a project to be cycling through maintainers and burning people out, losing consistency of leadership and i…

> We were never able to get any sane and consistent policy on bugfixes, and I don't have high hopes that anyone else will have better luck.

This reads an awful lot like blatant gaslighting.

It's quite public that you were kicked out not only because of abusive behavior towards other kernel developers but also you kept ignoring any and all testing and QA guardrails, to the point you tried to push patched that failed to build.

From the very public discussion, you should sit down any discussion on bugfixes and testing because, while you are voicing strong opinions on high quality bars, the evidence suggests you were following none.

Post reply on HN