3 ms·
Why not bcachefs? It has many of the features of zfs, but without the problems https://bcachefs.org/ https://bcachefs.org/
by pmarreck 5y ago
Why not bcachefs? It has many of the features of zfs, but without the problems
https://bcachefs.org/ https://bcachefs.org/
- michaelmrose 5y ago>Bcachefs is not yet upstream - you'll have to build a kernel to use it. > Bcachefs can currently be considered beta quality. It has a small pool of outside users >However, given that it's still under active development backups are a good idea.
- pmarreck 5y agoIt has about a 999% better chance of going upstream than ZFS does, so there's that
- michaelmrose 5y agoIt's completely ridiculous as a choice for present day usage however.
- pmarreck 5y agoI'd actually like to try. With regular backups, of course.
- unmole 5y agoWhy not use an experimental filesystem with functionally zero real world usage that isn't in the upstream kernel and has exactly one full time developer working on it? I love the ideas behind bcachefs but suggesting it's anywhere close to being ready for primetime is just silly.
- pmarreck 5y agoWell, that's hopefully coming soon. Nothing wrong with being supportive... I never claimed it was production-ready https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Bcachefs-November-2021 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Bcachefs...
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoYou asked > Why not bcachefs? To which, "it isn't stable or anything like prod-ready, and you still have to build it as an out-of-tree module" is a perfectly good answer. Hopefully, the answer will become "yes, bcachefs is the solution" soon, but we aren't there today.
- pmarreck 5y agoAlright. I kind of agree. At least I wanted to draw some attention to it at least, as I think it's promising.
- specto 5y agoI'm very much hoping this becomes the future of filesystems on linux, but it's very in flux at the moment. I wish some company would hire him and put a bunch of devs on it full time.