[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6xvioxpjw4cavxqznocsgcqwmuc6yhws72mqp6jixm4ebmg3ev@asr4qaaita5z>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:09:49 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Aquinas Admin <admin@...inas.su>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Malte Schröder <malte.schroeder@...ip.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Carl E. Thompson" <list-bcachefs@...lthompson.net>, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.17
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 11:02:24PM +0700, Aquinas Admin wrote:
> > Exactly. Which is why the Meta infrastructure is built completely on btrfs
> > and its features. We have saved billions of dollars in infrastructure costs
> > with the features and robustness of btrfs.
> >
> > Btrfs doesn't need me or anybody else wandering around screaming about how
> > everybody else sucks to gain users. The proof is in the pudding. If you read
> > anything that I've wrote in my commentary about other file systems you will
> > find nothing but praise and respect, because this is hard and we all make
> > our tradeoffs.
> >
> Sure, of course. The problem is that Meta doesn't need a general-purpose file
> system. And yes, and in general, Meta is not the kind of company that makes
> technically sound decisions.
This is entirely unnecessary.
> Has the problem with RAID5/6 (write hole) been solved in more than 20
> years of development?
My understanding is that RAID5/6 v2, with the stripes tree, is intended
to fix this (the same as how it works in bcachefs).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists