Thread

1. skerit · 1789843746 · focus · HN ↗

   Oh, so bcachefs is doing pretty well.

   1. tarruda · 1789844399 · focus · HN ↗

      Except for the fact that the developer has sabotaged the project into being removed from mainline?

      1. irusensei · 1789846618 · focus · HN ↗

         That might be the best thing happened to the project since now development can happen at its own pace without the clicky bait influencers.

         In fact they delivered the erasure coding for parity raid back in march this year.

         The thing is that as soon as you seriously give a chance to Bcachefs you see how good it is. I can only tell you that mixing different device tiers and having a per-file/directory replication setting is a god send specially in these times where storage costs more than gold.

         1. tarruda · 1789848798 · focus · HN ↗

            > The thing is that as soon as you seriously give a chance to Bcachefs you see how good it is.

            I'm pretty sure Bcachefs is amazing and better than Btrfs. I also think Zfs is amazing and better than Btrfs. Even so, I still use Btrfs because I know it is guaranteed to always be present on any Linux without any effort on my part.

            > That might be the best thing happened to the project since now development can happen at its own pace without the clicky bait influencers.

            A better approach might have been to just paused mainline merging instead of forcing being kicked out?

            Eg "Hey Linus, Bcachefs is still in early development and I need to merge changes in a pace that is not compatible with Linux development process. So I'm going to pause for a while now and once it reaches maintenance status I will focus on submitting patches in a healthy pace that you can digest".

            1. doubled112 · 1789855080 · focus · HN ↗

               > I still use Btrfs because I know it is guaranteed to always be present on any Linux without any effort on my part.

               Except RHEL. They don’t include it in their kernels.

               Alma Linux started including it again though.

               It can never be easy.

               1. cromka · 1789899026 · focus · HN ↗

                  Came here to say this. Supposedly Fedora also considers giving up on it.

                  1. farlight · 1789906991 · focus · HN ↗

                     This sounds like FUD, do you have any references? Genuinely asking. I follow LWN reporting religiously, which in turn follows Fedora development (and associated drama) closely, and haven't seen anything said in this direction. Just had a quick look on LWN and Fedora development resources, and nothing came up.

                     1. cromka · 1789976118 · focus · HN ↗

                        This is what I read here and elsewhere bunch of times, which is why I said "supposedly". A quick search did not reveal any meaningful proof, though. I'll ask next time I hear someone say this.
                  2. em-bee · 1789947516 · focus · HN ↗

                     unlikely. reference please. btrfs was the default filesystem on fedora installs last time i checked. to remove it they would have to first change that, then give it a few years before even considering removing it from the kernel. redhat could remove it because it was never default and never recommended.

                     1. cromka · 1789976123 · focus · HN ↗

                        This is what I read here and elsewhere bunch of times, which is why I said "supposedly". A quick search did not reveal any meaningful proof, though. I'll ask next time I hear someone say this.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.