HN Reader

The sad part, that despite the years of the development BTRS never reached the parity with ZFS. And yesterday's news "Josef Bacik who is a long-time Btrfs developer and active co-maintainer alongside David Sterba is leaving Meta. Additionally, he's also stepping back from Linux kernel development as his primary job." see https://www.phoronix.com/news/Josef-Bacik-Leaves-Meta

There is no 'modern' ZFS-like fs in Linux nowadays.

Since the existing bcachefs driver will not be removed, and the problem is the bcachefs developer not following the rules, I wonder if someone else could take on the role of pulling bcachefs changes into the mainline, while also following the merge window rules.

Is it just me or does Kent seem self-destructively glued to his own idea of how kernel development should work?

I don’t doubt that people on all sides have made mis-steps, but from the outside it mostly just seems like Kent doesn’t want to play by the rules (despite having been given years of patience).

It's orphaned in Debian as well, but I'm not sure what significant advantages it has over btrfs, which is very stable these days.

Who would use a file system which essentially seems to be developed by a single person? A bus-factor of one seems unacceptable for a FS. But maybe I am wrong and there are other developers, then why do they not take over upstreaming if the main developer is unable to collaborate with the kernel community.

Related: Linux CoC Announces Decision Wrt Kent Overstreet (Bcachefs) (kernel.org)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42221564 - 2024-11-23, 103 comments

FreeBSD is giving me a sultry look as I ponder my NAS build.

Damn. I was enjoying not having to deal with the fun of ZFS and DKMS, but it seems like now bcachefs will be in the same boat, either dealing with DKMS and occasional breakage or sticking with the kernel version that slowly gets more and more out of date.

It's amazing how many of the "experts" here don't get that bcachefs != btrfs

Surprised it took this long.

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.

Some collaboration failing there, no technical reasons for it. I hope they'll sort this nonsense out and it will go back to normal upstream maintenance.