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.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
95 points

Can someone say why bcachefs is interesting? Btrfs I can sort of understand. I haven’t much kept track of most others.

permalink
report
reply
54 points
*

For me the reason was that I wanted encryption, raid1 and compression with a mainlined filesystem to my workstation. Btrfs doesn’t have encryption, so you need to do it with luks to an mdadm raid, and build btrfs on top of that. Luks on mdadm raid is known to be slow, and in general not a great idea.

ZFS has raid levels, encryption and compression, but doesn’t have fsck. So you better have an UPS for your workstation for electric outages. If you do not unmount a ZFS volume cleanly, there’s a risk of data loss. ZFS also has a weird license, so you will never get it with mainline Linux kernel. And if you install the module separately, you’re not able to update to the latest kernel before ZFS supports it.

Bcachefs has all of this. And it’s supposed to be faster than ZFS and btrfs. In a few years it can really be the golden Linux filesystem recommended for everybody. I sure hope Kent gets some more help and stops picking fights with Linus before that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Encryption and compression don’t play well together though. You should consider that when storing sensitive files. That’s why it’s recommended to leave compression off in https because it weakens the encryption strength

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

How does that work? Encryption should not care at all about the data that is being encrypted. It is all just bytes at the end of the day, should not matter if they are compressed or not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It is only in TLS where you have to disable compression, not in HTTP.

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/19911/crime-how-to-beat-the-beast-successor/19914#19914

Could you explain how a CRIME attack can be done to a disk?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Bcachefs has all of this. And it’s supposed to be faster than ZFS and btrfs. In a few years it can really be the golden Linux filesystem recommended for everybody

ngl, the number of mainline Linux filesystems I’ve heard this about. ext2, ext3, btrfs, reiserfs, …

tbh I don’t even know why I should care. I understand all the features you mentioned and why they would be good, but i don’t have them today, and I’m fine. Any problem extant in the current filesystems is a problem I’ve already solved, or I wouldn’t be using Linux. Maybe someday, the filesystem will make new installations 10% better, but rn I don’t care.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It’s a filesystem that supports all of these features (and in combination):

  • snapshotting
  • error correction
  • per-file or per-directory “transparently compress this”
  • per-file of per-directory “transparently back this up”

If that is meaningless to you, that’s fine, but it sure as hell looks good to me. You can just stick with ext3 - it’s rock solid.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Btrfs doesn’t have encryption, so you need to do it with luks to an mdadm raid, and build btrfs on top of that. Luks on mdadm raid is known to be slow, and in general not a great idea.

Why involve mdadm? You can use one btrfs filesystem on a pair of luks volumes with btrfs’s “raid1” (or dup) profile. Both volumes can decrypt with the same key.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

ZFS doesn’t have fsck because it already does the equivalent during import, reads and scrubs. Since it’s CoW and transaction based, it can rollback to a good state after power loss. So not only does it automatically check and fix things, it’s less likely to have a problem from power loss in the first place. I’ve used it on a home NAS for 10 years, survived many power outages without a UPS. Of course things can go terribly wrong and you end up with an unrecoverable dataset, and a UPS isn’t a bad idea for any computer if you want reliability.

Totally agree about mainline kernel inclusion, just makes everything easier and ZFS will always be a weird add-on in Linux.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

ZFS doesn’t have Linux fsck has it is its own thing. It instead has ZFS scrubbing which fixes corruption. Just make sure you have at least raid 1 as without a duplicate copy ZFS will have no way of fixing corruption which will cause it to scream at you.

If you just need to get data off you can disable error checking. Just use it at your own risk.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But scrub is not fsck. It just goes through the checksums and corrects if needed. That’s why you need ECC ram so the checksums are always correct. If you get any other issues with the fs, like a power off when syncing a raidz2, there is a chance of an error that scrub cannot fix. Fsck does many other things to fix a filesystem…

So basically a typical zfs installation is with UPS, and I would avoid using it on my laptop just because it kind of needs ECC ram and you should always unmount it cleanly.

This is the spot where bcachefs comes into place. It will implement whatever we love about zfs, but also be kind of feasible for mobile devices. And its fsck is pretty good already, it even gets online checks in 6.11.

Don’t get me wrong, my NAS has and will have zfs because it just works and I don’t usually need to touch it. The NAS sits next to UPS…

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

bcachefs is meant to be more reliable than btrfs - which has had issues with since it was released (especially in the early days). Though bcachefs has yet to be proven at scale that it can beat btrfs at that.

Bcachefs also supports more features I believe - like encryption. No need for an extra layer below the filesystem to get the benefits of encryption. Much like compression that also happens on both btrfs and bcachefs.

Btrfs also has issues with certain raid configurations, I don’t think it yet has support for raid 5/6 like setup and it has promised that for - um, well maybe a decade already? and I still have not heard any signs of it making any progress on that front. Though bcachefs also still has this on their wishlist - but I see more hope for them getting it before btrfs which seems to have given up on that feature.

Bcachefs also claims to have a cleaner codebase than btrfs.

Though bcachefs is still very new so we will see how true some of its claims will end up being. But if true it does seem like the more interesting filesystem overall.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

In addition to the comment on the mentioned better hardware flexibility, I’ve seen really interesting features like defining compression & deduplication in a granular way, even to the point of having a compression algo when you first write data, and then a different more expensive one when your computer is idle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
147 points

bcachefs is way more flexible than btrfs on multi-device filesystems. You can group storage devices together based on performance/capacity/whatever else, and then do funky things like assigning a group of SSDs as a write-through/write-back cache for a bigger array of HDDs. You can also configure a ton of properties for individual files or directories, including the cache+main storage group, amount of data replicas, compression type, and quite a bit more.

So you could have two files in the same folder, one of them stored compressed on an array of HDDs in RAID10 and the other one stored on a different array of HDDs uncompressed in RAID5 with a write-back SSD cache, and wouldn’t have to fiddle around with multiple filesystems and bind mounts - everything can be configured by simply setting xattr values. You could even have a third file which is striped across both groups of HDDs without having to partition them up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

two files in the same folder, one of them stored compressed on an array of HDDs in RAID10 and the other one stored on a different array […]

Now that’s what I call serious over-engineering.

Who in the world wants to use that?

And does that developer maybe have some spare time? /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

This probably meets some extreme corporate usecase where they are serving millions of customers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Simple example: my Steam library could be RAID0 and unencrypted but my backups I definitely want to be RAID1 and compressed, and encrypted for security. The media library doesn’t need encryption but maybe want it in RAID1 because ripping movies takes forever. I may also want to have the games on NVMe when I play them, and stored on the HDDs when I’m not playing them, and my VMs on the SATA SSD array as a performance middleground.

permalink
report
parent
reply
63 points

This is actually a feature that enterprise SAN solutions have had for a while, being able choose your level of redundancy & performance at a file level is extremely useful for minimising downtime and not replicating ephemeral data.

Most filesystem features are not for the average user who has their data replicated in a cloud service; they’re for businesses where this flexibility saves a lot of money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Sounds like zfs with extra steps

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

ZFS doesn’t support tiered storage at all. Bcachefs is capable of promoting and demoting files to faster but smaller or slower but larger storage. It’s not just a cache. On ZFS the only option is really multiple zpools. Like you can sort of do that with the persistent L2ARC now but TBs of L2ARC is super wasteful and your data has to fully fit the pool.

Tiered storage is great for VMs and games and other large files. Play a game, promote to NVMe for fast loadings. Done playing, it gets moved to the HDDs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points
*

But is GPL-compatible, unlike ZFS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

Thank you. w o w

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Also because it’s meant to be an enterprise level filesystem like ZFS, but without the licensing baggage. They share a lot of feature sets.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Btrfs has architectural issues that can not be fixed. It is fine for smaller raid 0/1 but as soon as you try to scale it up you run into performance issues. This is because of how it was designed.

Bcachefs is like btrfs and has all the features btrfs does. However, it also is likely to be much faster. Additionally it has some extra features like tiered storage which allows you to have different storage mediums.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

Linux

!linux@lemmy.ml

Create post

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word “Linux” in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

  • Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
  • No misinformation
  • No NSFW content
  • No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

Community stats

  • 6.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 4K

    Posts

  • 55K

    Comments