[LeFantome]

I am not going to advocate to put bcachefs on 200 production machines.

However, I would like to push back on that article.

It says that bcachefs is "unstable" but provides no evidence to support that.

It says that Linus pushed back on it. Yes, but not for technical reasons but rather process ones. Think about that for a second though. Linus is brutal on technology. And I have never heard him criticize bcachefs technically except to say that case insensitivity is bad. Kind of an endorsement.

Yes, there have been a lot of patches. It is certainly under heavy development. But people are not losing their data. Kent submitted a giant list of changes for the kernel 6.17 merge window (ironically totally on time). Linus never took them. We are all using the 6.16 version of bcachefs without those patches. I imagine stories of bcachefs data loss would get lots of press right now. Have you heard any?

There are very few stories of bcachefs data loss. When I have heard of them, they seems to result in recovery. A couple I have seen were mount failures (not data loss) and were resolved. It has been rock-solid for me.

[koverstreet]

Eh? Linus has called it "experimental garbage that no one could be using" a whole bunch of times, based on absolutely nothing as far as I can tell.

Meanwhile just scan the thread for btrfs reports...

[optionalsquid]

> Eh? Linus has called it "experimental garbage that no one could be using" a whole bunch of times, based on absolutely nothing as far as I can tell.

Where did Linus call bcachefs "experimental garbage"? I've tried finding those comments before, but all I've been able to find are your comments stating that Linus said that