4 ms·

Thank you for your response! I remember that NILFS2 was in the middle order of magnitude in case of bugs from the presentation about filesystems fuzzing from 2

• xte 8y ago
  Your welcome and thanks for the link, I do not know it :-) Generally speaking I prefer experience than testing, no matter how accurate they are, I can't really tell if nilfs2 is rock solid or not due to the too little experience I have, however it's an old (so patched enough) project by a Japan telco that I think use it internally so I feel a bit of trust, the rest is covered by a good and tested backup that can't be left apart in any case and with NixOS/GuixSD even a root fs crash is not a big issue since replicate it's only a matter of copy few (possibly one) text files and let the installer do it's business... So my main point is that nilfs2 it's far lighter than zfs, it's considered safe on GNU/Linux (zfs is not) and it offer a good protection against accidental overwrite/deletion that on a desktop is important for me, even with the best and quickest backup I can imaging... I've probably remained on zfs if nilfs2 was not in kernel officially supported since years but being already there, lightweight enough it's my default choice hoping/dreaming for a different future... The rest of panorama is really bad: - xfs is essentially dead, like jfs - btrfs is a shitload of bugs - zfs can't be integrated and it's considered not production-ready on GNU/Linux - ext* are fs from another era, without nothing of the good things of xfs/jfs - stratis is for now more a dubious dream and not a real solution, only a way to poorly circumvent actual sorry state of storage - bcachefs is a promise, but for now it does not offer anything relevant - f2fs have nice performance but it's a bit buggy IME and it's even more limited than nilfs2 to a point of being unuseful... Outside of GNU/Linux IllumOS (despite it's zombie status) and FreeBSD have a good zfs support, production ready, DragonFlyBSD have hammer, the rest is as worse as Linux world...
  • pmoriarty 8y ago
    Could you elaborate on why you think xfs is dead? I've been using it for a long time and it's been rock solid. It just lacks the features of filesystems like zfs, btrfs, hammer, and bcachefs. But it's also very stable, is a tried and true filesystem, and exists right now on Linux.
    • xte 8y ago
      If I remember correctly at a Vault Conference few years ago Dave Chinner say that xFS codebase while actively maintained should be considered legacy since it's not really possible evolve it anymore and the better way to go is a complete re-design so a new filesystem, a thing that will not happen in xFS upstream... I do not find any transcript now, but looking for it somewhere in the web surely exists :-) So yes, it's rock solid and battle tested, certainly a safe choice respect of btrfs (buggy and not really good in production despite many do not care) or bcachefs (solid, stable, but essentially feature-less in today's implementation) but nothing more... RH and Oracle seems to push it a bit inconstantly but I still have to see any real plan...
  • michaelmrose 8y ago
    - XFS is actively developed with the linux kernel. - stratis is kind of the traditional approach of a layered approach to filesystems instead of building the features into each filesystem. This has traditionally been a workable solution. It's reasonable to expect this to be workable going forward if not immediately. - ZFS is 13 years old now and very much battle tested at this point. ZFS on linux goes back an entire decade. Much of what you are running is just tested code running via a layer to provide compatibility with a different unix like OS. In fact its funny that you should mention FreeBSD considering freeBSD's will be running code based on zfs on linux. https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2018-December/027085.html https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2018-December... Of note "In the past few years the vast majority of new development in ZFS has taken place in DelphixOS and zfsonlinux (ZoL). Earlier this year Delphix announced that they will be moving to ZoL" "While working through the git history of ZoL I have also discovered that many races and locking bugs have been fixed in ZoL and never made it back to Illumos and thus FreeBSD. This state of affairs has led to a general agreement among the stakeholders that I have spoken to that it makes sense to rebase FreeBSD's ZFS on ZoL." It seems that freebsd thinks that zfs on linux is not only production ready its better and more bug free than the illumOS version. It's hard to imagine a universe where zfs on linux isn't considered sufficiently production ready despite having received man centuries of effort over more than a decade while hammer2 the result of what less than a man year of total effort over 4 years is. This is not to denigrate the authors efforts. DragonflyBSD and hammer2 look quite interesting. You see a glass half empty wasteland lacking in any good options I see an embarrassment of riches current and upcoming.