Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1478341
| From | "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: bcache vs bcachefs |
| Date | 2016-09-07 16:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <seMb8-WB-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <selkC-ll-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <seznz-11w-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2016-09-06 20:55, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:46:28AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I am pretty hesitant replacing the rock-solid ext4 by bcachefs on my servers. >> Meaning no offense, but surely I would prefer to have ext4 with a thin "SSD >> caching layer" over a completely different filesystem, potentially with alot >> of teething troubles. >> >> Question: Is bcache EOL or can I rely on it for the next 5 to 10 years? > > bcache is not EOL - it's still receiving bugfixes. > > That said though, there's no reason to expect a long teething period with > bcachefs, it's already more reliable than btrfs in single device mode. > I'd be curious to see any actual data you have to back that up, especially regarding what kernel and userspace were involved with the BTRFS testing.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
bcache vs bcachefs Harald Dunkel <harri@afaics.de> - 2016-09-06 12:00 +0200
Re: bcache vs bcachefs Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 03:00 +0200
Re: bcache vs bcachefs "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 16:40 +0200
Re: bcache vs bcachefs Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 18:00 +0200
Re: bcache vs bcachefs Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2016-09-08 05:10 +0200
Re: bcache vs bcachefs Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 06:30 +0200
csiph-web