←back to thread

Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

(lwn.net)
214 points ksec | 3 comments | 30 Aug 25 13:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.777s | source
Show context
betaby ◴[30 Aug 25 17:49 UTC] No.45076609[source]▶
The sad part, that despite the years of the development BTRS never reached the parity with ZFS. And yesterday's news "Josef Bacik who is a long-time Btrfs developer and active co-maintainer alongside David Sterba is leaving Meta. Additionally, he's also stepping back from Linux kernel development as his primary job." see https://www.phoronix.com/news/Josef-Bacik-Leaves-Meta

There is no 'modern' ZFS-like fs in Linux nowadays.

replies(4): >>45076793 #>>45076833 #>>45078150 #>>45080011 #
ofrzeta ◴[30 Aug 25 18:14 UTC] No.45076833[source]▶
Suse Linux Enterprise still uses Btrfs as the Root-FS, so it can't be that bad, right? What is Chris Mason actually doing these days? I did some googling and only found out that he was working on a tool called "rsched".
replies(4): >>45077496 #>>45078503 #>>45082115 #>>45089747 #
dmm ◴[30 Aug 25 19:50 UTC] No.45077496[source]▶
btrfs is fine for single disks or mirrors. In my experience, the main advantages of zfs over btrfs is that ZFS has production ready raid5/6 like parity modes and has much better performance for small sync writes, which are common for databases and hosting VM images.
replies(2): >>45078384 #>>45084324 #
1. riku_iki ◴[30 Aug 25 22:04 UTC] No.45078384[source]▶
> has much better performance for small sync writes

I spent some time researching this topic, and in all benchmarks I've seen and my personal tests btrfs is faster or much faster: https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/1i3yjpt/very_poor_perf...

replies(1): >>45083828 #
2. dmm ◴[31 Aug 25 15:17 UTC] No.45083828[source]▶
Thanks for sharing! I just setup a fs benchmark system and I'll run your fio command so we can compare results. I have a question about your fio args though. I think "--ioengine=sync" and "--iodepth=16" are incompatible, in the sense that iodepth will only be 1.

"Note that increasing iodepth beyond 1 will not affect synchronous ioengines"[1]

Is there a reason you used that ioengine as opposed to, for example, "libaio" with a "--direct=1" flag?

[1] https://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_doc.html#cmdoption-...

replies(1): >>45084006 #
3. riku_iki ◴[31 Aug 25 15:36 UTC] No.45084006[source]▶
Intuition is that majority of software uses standard sync FS api..