* bcache vs bcachefs @ 2016-09-06 9:46 Harald Dunkel 2016-09-07 0:55 ` Kent Overstreet 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Harald Dunkel @ 2016-09-06 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel 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? Regards Harri ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: bcache vs bcachefs 2016-09-06 9:46 bcache vs bcachefs Harald Dunkel @ 2016-09-07 0:55 ` Kent Overstreet 2016-09-07 14:34 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Kent Overstreet @ 2016-09-07 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Harald Dunkel; +Cc: linux-kernel 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: bcache vs bcachefs 2016-09-07 0:55 ` Kent Overstreet @ 2016-09-07 14:34 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2016-09-07 15:55 ` Kent Overstreet 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Austin S. Hemmelgarn @ 2016-09-07 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kent Overstreet; +Cc: Harald Dunkel, linux-kernel 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: bcache vs bcachefs 2016-09-07 14:34 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn @ 2016-09-07 15:55 ` Kent Overstreet 2016-09-08 3:01 ` Theodore Ts'o 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Kent Overstreet @ 2016-09-07 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Austin S. Hemmelgarn; +Cc: Harald Dunkel, linux-kernel On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:34:15AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 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. I'm not a btrfs user, I'm mostly going off feedback from bcachefs users (many or most of whom are or have been btrfs users too). On the bcachefs side, here's what we've seen so far: - No one has lost data or seen any corruption when using the currently supported feature set (multiple devices and caching are not stable just yet). I believe the worst bug anyone's hit was 0 length symlinks after unclean shutdown, and also 0 length files because we hadn't implemented the workarounds for applications that don't fsync yet. - I _believe_ no one's seen any crashes/deadlocks/hangs in supported configurations - there was a report of a deadlock, but I believe he was using tiering and it hasn't reproduced since. I haven't asked for details about the btrfs issues the bcachefs users have seen (one guy mentioned his 20 core machine panics running btrfs as the reason he was considering switching it to bcachefs). Smaller sample size, unscientific comparisons, etc. etc. but it's certainly looking more robust so far. That said, I'm not advocating people rush out to throw bcachefs on their servers or use it without backups yet, it's still young and needs more widespread testing. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: bcache vs bcachefs 2016-09-07 15:55 ` Kent Overstreet @ 2016-09-08 3:01 ` Theodore Ts'o 2016-09-08 4:24 ` Kent Overstreet 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2016-09-08 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kent Overstreet; +Cc: Austin S. Hemmelgarn, Harald Dunkel, linux-kernel On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 07:55:52AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote: > That said, I'm not advocating people rush out to throw bcachefs on their servers > or use it without backups yet, it's still young and needs more widespread > testing. Hi Kent! Have you started using xfstests to stress test bcachefs yet? You may be interested in reading through this presentation, especially the last slide. :-) https://thunk.org/gce-xfstests - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: bcache vs bcachefs 2016-09-08 3:01 ` Theodore Ts'o @ 2016-09-08 4:24 ` Kent Overstreet 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Kent Overstreet @ 2016-09-08 4:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Ts'o, Austin S. Hemmelgarn, Harald Dunkel, linux-kernel On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:01:40PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 07:55:52AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > That said, I'm not advocating people rush out to throw bcachefs on their servers > > or use it without backups yet, it's still young and needs more widespread > > testing. > > Hi Kent! > > Have you started using xfstests to stress test bcachefs yet? Yep, since I had enough of a filesystem to test. > You may be interested in reading through this presentation, especially > the last slide. :-) > > https://thunk.org/gce-xfstests Looks similar conceptually to my own xfstests wrapper... lol @ the last slide :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-08 4:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-09-06 9:46 bcache vs bcachefs Harald Dunkel 2016-09-07 0:55 ` Kent Overstreet 2016-09-07 14:34 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn 2016-09-07 15:55 ` Kent Overstreet 2016-09-08 3:01 ` Theodore Ts'o 2016-09-08 4:24 ` Kent Overstreet
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).