There is no 'modern' ZFS-like fs in Linux nowadays.
But there's a ton of room for improvement beyond what ZFS did. ZFS was a very conservative design in a lot of ways (rightly so! so many ambitious projects die because of second system syndrome); notably, it's block based and doesn't do extents - extents and snapshots are a painfully difficult combination.
Took me years to figure that one out.
My hope for bcachefs has always been to be a real successor to ZFS, with better and more flexible management, better performance, and even better robustness and reliability.
Long road, but the work continues.
Say more? I can't say I've really thought that much about filesystems and I'm curious in what direction you think they could be taken if time and budget weren't an issue.
It's an entirely clean slate design, and I spent years taking my time on the core planning out the design; it's as close to perfect as I can make it.
The only things I can think of that I would change or add given unlimited time and budget: - It should be written in Rust, and even better a Rust + dependent types (which I suspect could be done with proc macros) for formal verification. And cap'n proto for on disk data structures (which still needs Rust improvements to be as ergonomic as it should be) would also be a really nice improvement.
- More hardening; the only other thing we're lacking is comprehensive fault injection testing of on disk errors. It's sufficiently battle hardened that it's not a major gap, but it really should happen at some point.
- There's more work to be done in bitrot prevention: data checksums really need to be plumbed all the way into the pagecache
I'm sure we'll keep discovering new small ways to harden, but nothing huge at this point.
Some highlights: - It has more defense in depth than any filesystem I know of. It's as close to impossible to have unrecoverable data loss as I think can really be done in a practical production filesystem - short of going full immutable/append only.
- Closest realization of "filesystem as a database" that I know of
- IO path options (replication level, compression, etc.) can be set on a per file or directory basis: I'm midway through a project extending this to do some really cool stuff, basically data management is purely declarative.
- Erasure coding is much more performant than ZFS's
- Data layout is fully dynamic, meaning you can add/remove devices at will, it just does the right thing - meaning smoother device management than ZFS
- The way the repair code works, and tracking of errors we've seen - fantastic for debugability
- Debugability and introspection are second to none: long bug hunts really aren't a thing in bcachefs development because you can just see anything the system is doing
There's still lots of work to do before we're fully at parity with ZFS. Over the next year or two I should be finishing erasure coding, online fsck, failure domains, lots more management stuff... there will always be more cool projects just over the horizon
More so than BFS?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_File_System
"Like its predecessor, OFS (Old Be File System, written by Benoit Schillings - formerly BFS), it includes support for extended file attributes (metadata), with indexing and querying characteristics to provide functionality similar to that of a relational database."
But I'm talking more about the internals than external database functionality; the inner workings are much more fundamental.
bcachefs internally is structured more like a relational database than a traditional Unix filesystem, where everything hangs off the inode. In bcachefs, there's an extents btree (read: table), an inodes btree, a dirents btree, and a whole bunch of others - we're up to 20 (!).
There's transactions, where you can do arbitrary lookups, updates, and then commit, with all the database locking hidden from you; lookups within a transaction see uncommitted updates from that transaction. There's triggers, which are used heavily.
We don't have the full relational model - no SELECT or JOIN, no indices on arbitrary fields like with SQL (but you can do effectively the same thing with triggers, I do it all the time).
All the database/transactional primitives make the rest of the codebase much smaller and cleaner, and make feature development a lot easier than what you'd expect in other filesystems.