Bcachefs Goes to "Externally Maintained"

(lwn.net)

222 points ksec | 1 comments | 30 Aug 25 13:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.2s | source

Show context

qalmakka ◴[31 Aug 25 04:26 UTC] No.45080377[source]▶

The whole situation is moronic at best. Linux needs a decent modern filesystem in tree. ZFS would easily be it, but unfortunately Sun decided back in the '00s to fuck Linux because they wanted to push Solaris instead. Little they knew ZFS ended up being FreeBSD top feature for years.

Btrfs is constantly eating people data, it's a bad joke nowadays. Right now on Linux you're basically forced to constantly deal with out of tree ZFS or accept that thinly provisioned XFS over LVM2 will inevitably cause you to lose data.

replies(2): >>45080442 #>>45081632 #

goneri ◴[31 Aug 25 04:44 UTC] No.45080442[source]▶

>>45080377 #

Btrfs is NOT constantly eating people data. You have nothing to back this statement.

It's widely used and the default filesystem of several distributions. Most of the problems are like for the other filesystem: caused by the hardware.

I've been using it for more than 10 years without any problem and enjoy the experience. And like for any filesystem, I backup my data frequently (with btrbk, thanks for asking).

replies(4): >>45080475 #>>45080496 #>>45083738 #>>45089695 #

1. AaronFriel ◴[01 Sep 25 05:20 UTC] No.45089695[source]▶

>>45080442 #

I think any discussion of btrfs needs to acknowledge that raid5/6 support was promised in the early years, shipped in the kernel in 2013 and, until 2021's btrfs-progs 5.11 release, did not warn users that they risked data loss when creating volumes.

For near a decade btrfs raid5/6 was "unsafe at any speed" and many people lost data to it, including myself.

↑