Thread

Btrfs/ZFS/bcachefs under workloads classic benchmarks skip

179 points · 190 comments · farlight

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.
    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".
    koverstreet · 1789849447 · focus · HN ↗
    I was very up front about where we were at.
    A lot of things were tried, people did try to mediate.
    The particularly galling thing though was when I finally started looking - post split - comparing bcachefs PRs to other subsystems and especially XFS - I was being more conservative with what I considered a critical bugfix.
    There was never a clear statement on what the issue was. What you guys got in public was about as much as I got.
    All I can say is - going fast when you're stabilizing and getting bugfixes out the door is what you can and should be doing when you've invested in test coverage, test automation, keeping the codebase clean and asserted, and building up a community that works well together on testing and shaking things out.
    I genuinely do not know what they were thinking.
    locknitpicker · 1789885261 · focus · HN ↗
    > There was never a clear statement on what the issue was. What you guys got in public was about as much as I got.
    If you are referring to why bcachefs was removed from the Linux kernel, here's a discussion on bcachefs being removed from the Linux kernel.
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44868868">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44868868
    ssl-3 · 1789900378 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd like to point out that HN user koverstreet was involved in those threads, here.
    They already know what was discussed.
    (Good? Bad? Indifferent? I don't know and I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just here connecting the dots.)
    locknitpicker · 1789964353 · focus · HN ↗
    > I'd like to point out that HN user koverstreet was involved in those threads, here.
    Yes, that's why those remarks on how it's a mystery how bcachefs was pulled from the kernel are perplexing. To me they sound like gaslighting.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.