4 ms·

Some of them are grounded in Linux politics. I have hope in bcachefs but best not rush, we've all seen btrfs.

arghwhat 4y ago
ZFS was never any prettier on BSD either, so wouldn't blame Linux in that. But yes, bcachefs is somewhat interesting. Or maybe btrfs manages to clean up their act one day.
- fbhabbed 4y ago
  What's wrong with btrfs?
  - asdf123a 4y ago
    as with all things GPL, victim of FUD campaigns by corporate america.
    - arghwhat 4y ago
      excuse me what
  - detaro 4y ago
    The parity-based RAID levels still are officially not safe for production, and overall many people don't quite trust it in more complex setups due to past bugs.
  - doublepg23 4y ago
    Here’s an excellent run down that’s somewhat recent: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linuxs-perpetually-half-finished-filesystem/?amp=1 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu...
  - sillystuff 4y ago
    It depends on your use case. BTRFS still has deficiencies in how it does quotas (significantly slows down fs if you enable quotas). BTRFS raid 5 has a write hole like traditional raid 5. And, there is a problem that sometimes occurs with individual extents when you use dedup. One of the dedup tools predicts that the issue will occur and will skip dedupe on such extents. There were RFCs on proposals to address both the write hole and quota issues on LWN this year, with the write hole fix already having draft patches see "raid tree". BTRFS is fine if you are not doing things that can hit those edges.
- blacklion 4y ago
  ZFS on FreeBSD was very pretty, till Linux guys added adb and other Linux-specific features.
  - arghwhat 4y ago
    In what way? Back when I used it it seemed just as misplaced. Its own mount semantics, its own caches, all that.
    - blacklion 4y ago
      Blazingly fast, robust and rock-solid. Miles better than all that geom_xxx RAIDs (I've been maintainer of geom_raid5, mind you), chipset RAIDs and FFS2 SU+J stuff, which is not completely stable even right now — I've got a ton of erros from forced foreground fsck after "normal" background fsck completion as soon as 2019 (I don't have single R/W FFS2 after that, and I'm happy!) With all my due respect to McKusick, all this modernization of FFS2 (SU, snapshots, SU+J) always was very fragile, and software RAIDs implemented as GEOMs is much worse than ZFS VDEV layer. Linux-induced changes downgrade ZFS performance a lot, though :-( Another level of indirection in ARC is really big deal.

ZFS was never any prettier on BSD either, so wouldn't blame Linux in that. But yes, bcachefs is somewhat interesting. Or maybe btrfs manages to clean up their act one day.

fbhabbed 4y ago
What's wrong with btrfs?
- asdf123a 4y ago
  as with all things GPL, victim of FUD campaigns by corporate america.
  - arghwhat 4y ago
    excuse me what
- detaro 4y ago
  The parity-based RAID levels still are officially not safe for production, and overall many people don't quite trust it in more complex setups due to past bugs.
- doublepg23 4y ago
  Here’s an excellent run down that’s somewhat recent: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linuxs-perpetually-half-finished-filesystem/?amp=1 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu...
- sillystuff 4y ago
  It depends on your use case. BTRFS still has deficiencies in how it does quotas (significantly slows down fs if you enable quotas). BTRFS raid 5 has a write hole like traditional raid 5. And, there is a problem that sometimes occurs with individual extents when you use dedup. One of the dedup tools predicts that the issue will occur and will skip dedupe on such extents. There were RFCs on proposals to address both the write hole and quota issues on LWN this year, with the write hole fix already having draft patches see "raid tree". BTRFS is fine if you are not doing things that can hit those edges.
blacklion 4y ago
ZFS on FreeBSD was very pretty, till Linux guys added adb and other Linux-specific features.
- arghwhat 4y ago
  In what way? Back when I used it it seemed just as misplaced. Its own mount semantics, its own caches, all that.
  - blacklion 4y ago
    Blazingly fast, robust and rock-solid. Miles better than all that geom_xxx RAIDs (I've been maintainer of geom_raid5, mind you), chipset RAIDs and FFS2 SU+J stuff, which is not completely stable even right now — I've got a ton of erros from forced foreground fsck after "normal" background fsck completion as soon as 2019 (I don't have single R/W FFS2 after that, and I'm happy!) With all my due respect to McKusick, all this modernization of FFS2 (SU, snapshots, SU+J) always was very fragile, and software RAIDs implemented as GEOMs is much worse than ZFS VDEV layer. Linux-induced changes downgrade ZFS performance a lot, though :-( Another level of indirection in ARC is really big deal.