From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (lichtvoll.de [37.120.160.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597C8198E9B; Sun, 10 Aug 2025 10:32:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.160.25 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754821963; cv=none; b=m6jPh5leNObINCxga0b9vCbucCtsc/1bEVMlBOs3H/fdpfpjKRVL4zf3Y/P2eOdIGSvAU9bamjjT0kZWfUUm9xFfY8yylV1wS/5F+kO5jg3Qrx9dpWo91ivJi9qBCl6Y5F4NGAAv7sTkMwHjBJw40LpWUVCRTDv9ZCe9g7SB3kI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754821963; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8D9WEyhPPhhVKH+WCxVVbKm/SDCaoqn/KutdHv9zxqo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YRHeh+m0QyDx19gWe1Yl/wFJpvu3RReAqXlzG+9wqpVt1rqlJd1iAZUXEUxRi6XZmOtOm08JdkoE+AywfSITUeHd4pNIzVzgsnzfRmhekf+UmbgriCMR28n/twfoxxc8FPZNStctwpHmrCyrhQ1EZKf08VAmHmSeKfbAS/nOGvk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtvoll.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtvoll.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.160.25 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtvoll.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtvoll.de Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7DC912E133; Sun, 10 Aug 2025 10:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.lichtvoll.de; auth=pass smtp.auth=martin@lichtvoll.de smtp.mailfrom=martin@lichtvoll.de From: Martin Steigerwald To: Kent Overstreet , Linus Torvalds , Gerhard Wiesinger Cc: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.17 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2025 12:32:38 +0200 Message-ID: <22799288.EfDdHjke4D@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: References: <22ib5scviwwa7bqeln22w2xm3dlywc4yuactrddhmsntixnghr@wjmmbpxjvipv> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Gerhard, hi. Gerhard Wiesinger - 10.08.25, 08:20:43 CEST: > On 28.07.2025 17:14, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Schedule notes for users: > >=20 > > I've been digging through the bug tracker and polling users to see > > what bugs are still outstanding, and - it's not much. > >=20 > > So, the experimental label is coming off in 6.18. > >=20 > > As always, if you do hit a bug, please report it. >=20 > I can now confirm that bcachefs is getting stable and the test cases > with intentionally data corruption (simulation of a real world case I > had) gets bcachefs back to a consistent state (after 2 runs of: bcachefs > fsck -f -y ${DEV}). That's a base requirement for a stable filesystem. > Version of bcachefs-tools is git > 530e8ade4e6af7d152f4f79bf9f2b9dec6441f2b and kernel is > 6.16.0-200.fc42.x86_64. >=20 > See for details, I made data corruption even worser with running the > destroy script 5x: >=20 > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bcachefs/aa613c37-153c-43e4-b68e-9d50744be > 7de@wiesinger.com/ >=20 > Great work Kent and the other contributors. >=20 > Unfortunately btrfs can't be repaired to a consistent state with the > same testcase. I'd like to be that testcase fixed also for BTRFS as a > stable filesystem (versions: 6.16.0-200.fc42.x86_64, btrfs-progs v6.15, > -EXPERIMENTAL -INJECT -STATIC +LZO +ZSTD +UDEV +FSVERITY +ZONED > CRYPTO=3Dlibgcrypt). >=20 > (I reported that already far in the past on the mailing list, see here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/63f8866f-ceda-4228-b595-e37b016e7b1f > @wiesinger.com/). Thanks for this great find and these test results. On a technical perspective I still think the Linux kernel is a better=20 kernel with BCacheFS included. And write this without having had any issues =E2=80=93 except for bad perfo= rmance=20 especially on hard disks, but partly also on flash =E2=80=93 with BTRFS. An= d I use=20 it on a couple laptops, some virtual machines and a lot of external disks.= =20 But not on a multi device setup. I had a BTRFS RAID 1 for a long time.=20 This also has been stable since kernel 4.6 up to the time I still used it. So I did not really have much of a need to fsck BTRFS. Best, =2D-=20 Martin