There’s been some Friday night kernel drama on the Linux kernel mailing list… Linus Torvalds has expressed regrets for merging the Bcachefs file-system and an ensuing back-and-forth between the file-system maintainer.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I think we’re just talking about different priorities. For me stability is the most important in production. For you features seem to matter more. For me it’s enough if a file system can store, write, read and not lose files. I guess it depends on what the use case and the budget are.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, some people have needs that you don’t have. That’s why I commented on your blanket statement of just use EXT4.

      I have BTRFS in production all over the place. Snapshots are extremely useful for what I do.

    • DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      ext4 aims to not lose data under the assumption that the single underlying drive is reliable. btrfs/bcachefs/ZFS assume that one/many of the perhaps dozens of underlying drives could fail entirely or start returning garbage at any time, and try to ensure that the bad drive can be kicked out and replaced without losing any data or interrupting the system. They’re both aiming for stability, but stability requirements are much different at scale than a “dumb” filesystem can offer, because once you have enough drives one of them WILL fail and ext4 cannot save you in that situation.

      Complaining that datacenter-grade filesystems are unreliable when using them in your home computer is like removing all but one of the engines from a 747 and then complaining that it’s prone to crashing. Of course it is, because it was designed under the assumption that there would be redundancy.

    • ProtonBadger@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Well, yes use-case is key. But interestingly ext4 will never detect bitrot/errors/corruption. BTRFS will detect corrupted files because its targeted users wants to know. It makes it difficult to say what’s the more reliable FS because first we’d have to define “reliable” and the perception of it and who/what do we blame when the FS tells us there’s a corrupted file detected?. Do we shoot the messenger?