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:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:34:15 -0400
From:   "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Cc:     Harald Dunkel <harri@...ics.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bcache vs bcachefs

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.