2 ms·

Checking the bus factor: Btrfs regulars: - 1 from Meta - 1 from Oracle - 4 from SuSe - 2 from WDC bcachefs: - Kent Overstreet

• r0l1 12d ago
  Might end in a new bcachefs fork beeing included back into mainline. If companies sponsor a few fulltime devs working on the new fork, we finally might have a stable enterprise ready CoW filesystem.
  • koverstreet 12d ago
    Uhh, do you know what the upstream stance is on testing and fixing bugs? I doubt there'd be any real interest in a bastardized fork that only exists so the deep pocketed vendors can get away with code dump and run.
• throw0101a 12d ago
  And Btrfs still does not have a RAID-5/6 that they themselves recommend for usage: * https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#man-btrfs5-raid56-status https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#man-b... What have they been doing for the last decade(+)?
  • farlight 12d ago
    Other things: since no companies sponsoring its development had any interest in raid 5/6, which is mostly a home enthusiast thing. Western Digital picked up this work last year and is slowly getting through the new design without the write hole, I think we'll see working raid 5/6 in the next year or two.
    • throw0101a 12d ago
      > Other things: since no companies sponsoring its development had any interest in raid 5/6, which is mostly a home enthusiast thing. I've used RAID-Z1/2/3 at a couple of jobs: yes IOps is suck-y, but if it's for backups of other systems, or the central logging server, or network monitoring (Suricata, Snort), sometimes your priority is cheap/bulk. I'm currently in the HPC space, and Lustre is a thing here, and it has tiered storage via policies: you can (e.g.) put your recent/hot data on NVMe, but older/colder bits on spinning rust on ZFS.