linux-kernel - Re: bcache vs bcachefs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:55:46 -0800
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To:     Harald Dunkel <harri@...ics.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bcache vs bcachefs

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.