From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Emmanuel Florac Subject: Why bcachefs? Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:29:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20150818132921.7ef7db8b@harpe.intellique.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5]:36810 "EHLO smtp5-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750890AbbHRL3T (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:29:19 -0400 Received: from harpe.intellique.com (unknown [82.225.196.72]) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A78D48037 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:29:17 +0200 (CEST) Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org To: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org After toying a bit with it, I'm wondering: why bcachefs? I understand that integrating the filesystem with the cache layer probably makes the job easier but overall ... we already have several excellent filesystems; developing a reliable filesystem is DAMN HARD; building a feature-complete FS is CRAZY HARD (see btrfs); because FTL sucks anyway and we'd rather wait for ways to move ahead of it... So Kent, please, tell us, why? :) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique | Intellique | | +33 1 78 94 84 02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------