Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday August 23 2015, @07:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the is-it-named-systemd dept.

An ex-Google engineer is developing a new file system for Linux, with the hopes that it can offer a speedier and more advanced way of storing data on servers.

After a number of years of development, the Bcache File System (Bcachefs) "is more or less feature complete -- nothing critical should be missing," wrote project head Kent Overstreet, in an e-mail to the Linux Kernel Mailing List late Thursday.

Linux currently has plenty of working file systems, though no one file system seems to be best-suited for all uses.

The main goal of Bcachefs is to match the speed of traditional Linux file systems with the advanced scalability and reliability of newer file systems, Overstreet wrote.

Although not a sexy technology, file systems provide the interface to the operating system for storing files on a disk.

The most widely used file system among Linux users is the decades-old Gnu/Linux Extended Filesystem series of filesystems -- Ext4 being the latest release. But many organizations and users have gravitated towards other file systems, such as Btrfs or XFS, to handle very large amounts of data, or to use advanced techniques in ensuring data integrity.

This file system evolved from the work Overstreet did at Google, where he worked as a software engineer for two years from 2011 until 2013 to create caching software.

Bcachefs has all the features of a modern file system, Overstreet wrote, including checksumming to ensure data integrity, compression to save space, caching for quick response, and copy-on-write, which offers the ability for a single file to be accessed by multiple parties at once.

...

Overstreet is working on the file system on his own time, without outside funding. He is seeking other administrators and developers to test the system and even contribute to its development.

Nonetheless, the release of Bcachefs seems to have met with cautious optimism by the Linux professionals on the Hacker News online forum, though one contributor did say of Overstreet that "I hope the guy has a large stash in his bank. File systems take notoriously long to stabilize."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Marand on Sunday August 23 2015, @08:21PM

    by Marand (1081) on Sunday August 23 2015, @08:21PM (#226717) Journal

    The most widely used file system among Linux users is the decades-old Gnu/Linux Extended Filesystem series of filesystems

    (Nitpicking mode on)

    "GNU/Linux extended filesystem"? This is new; usually the problem (if you consider it one) is that people forget the GNU part in places it's relevant, like referring to distributions as just Linux distributions. This time, though, we get Linux kernel work being erroneously attributed to GNU. "GNU/Linux" is used to refer to an operating system that is a combination of GNU userland on top of Linux kernel, hence "GNU/Linux". Not every part of these systems is GNU, with the kernel being the most notable example. If the Linux kernel were GNU, the OS could just be called "GNU", omitting the "/Linux" portion of the name, but it's not. Since the kernel is a separate non-GNU piece of the system, that means parts specific to the kernel itself -- such as the ext filesystem -- should be referred to as parts of Linux, not parts of GNU/Linux.

    It should also be noted that GNU should be uppercase and the phrasing was clunky; it could have been made shorter and more readable in several ways, such as referring to it as "the decades-old Linux Extended Filesystem".

    I'm probably just expecting too much from ITWorld, but if you're getting paid to write about open source, you should at least have a rudimentary understanding of writing and the subject matter you're being paid to write about. If it had been something obscure I wouldn't have complained, but knowing what's GNU, what's GNU/Linux, and that GNU is uppercase are very basic parts of this topic category.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23 2015, @08:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23 2015, @08:52PM (#226725)

    SystemD/Linux

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Bot on Sunday August 23 2015, @10:14PM

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday August 23 2015, @10:14PM (#226734) Journal

    > parts specific to the kernel itself -- such as the ext filesystem -- should be referred to as parts of Linux, not parts of GNU/Linux.
    nitpicking over your nitpicking

    As you know, (A is part of B & B is part of C) => A is part of C.
    Else one could argue that one filesystem is part of linux's virtual file system architecture, not of the entire kernel.

    And for the one time Stallman was happy to read one comment you had to nitpick. BOO.
     

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2) by Marand on Sunday August 23 2015, @10:51PM

      by Marand (1081) on Sunday August 23 2015, @10:51PM (#226746) Journal

      Except that there's a distinction here. Linux isn't GNU, and GNU isn't Linux. The GNU/Linux concept is an FSF thing that was created to latch onto the Linux kernel popularity and remind everyone that GNU software is used in distributions by stating that distributions should explicitly name the use of both GNU and Linux. It would have made more sense to write it as GNU+Linux, probably, but it doesn't matter; either way, it's still just an abstraction and only makes sense at high level, such as Debian being called GNU/Linux. The GNU part isn't Linux and the Linux part isn't GNU, because GNU/Linux is combination, not indication of a subset.

      It's not a case of "A is in B, B is in C, so A is in C" like you suggest because calling Linux a GNU project because some people call distros GNU/Linux is akin to saying "A and B are used in A+B, so A is part of B". A (Linux) isn't a subset of B (GNU) in this case. Linux filesystems, however are a subset of the Linux kernel, so your counter-argument fails due to being completely different.

      Android, by contrast, uses the Linux kernel (which is non-GNU) but isn't considered GNU/Linux due to custom userland. If Linux were part of GNU then it'd be GNU/Android or something.

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:41AM

        by Bot (3902) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:41AM (#227431) Journal

        Linux is under the GPL and the G stands for GNU, so considering it separate seems overkill, anyway I don`t strongly disagree with your opinion. It is GNU/Linux likely because at the time a lot of stuff had xxx/yyy denominations, CP/M for example

        --
        Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:53AM

          by Bot (3902) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:53AM (#227439) Journal

          Oh last nitpicking, the A is part of C still stands after you prove that C is the sum of a thing containing A plus a completely separate stuff. Proof, ext4 is part of `software`.

          --
          Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Gravis on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:43PM

          by Gravis (4596) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:43PM (#227553)

          Linux is under the GPL and the G stands for GNU

          no it doesn't. GPL stands for General Public License.

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Bot on Friday September 04 2015, @04:22PM

            by Bot (3902) on Friday September 04 2015, @04:22PM (#232312) Journal

            What does “GPL” stand for? (#WhatDoesGPLStandFor)
            “GPL” stands for “General Public License”. The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. This can be further shortened to “GPL”, when it is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.

            So while I concede the point, the implication following it still valid because GNU is implied. But if there are others general public licenses that you could contextualize here I am all ears.

            --
            Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gravis on Sunday August 23 2015, @11:38PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Sunday August 23 2015, @11:38PM (#226756)

    usually the problem (if you consider it one) is that people forget the GNU part in places it's relevant, like referring to distributions as just Linux distributions.

    if anything, it should be called POSIX/Linux. "POSIX" is the type of OS where "GNU" is like a brand name. Linux it's restricted to any specific implementation userland tools, POSIX or otherwise, so if you want to say it's a unix-like environment, just call it POSIX/Linux. alternatively, stop acting like a dick and just call it Linux. :)

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:47PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:47PM (#227556) Journal

      if anything, it should be called POSIX/Linux. "POSIX" is the type of OS where "GNU" is like a brand name. Linux it's restricted to any specific implementation userland tools, POSIX or otherwise, so if you want to say it's a unix-like environment, just call it POSIX/Linux. alternatively, stop acting like a dick and just call it Linux. :)

      Calling it POSIX/Linux is meaningless, because *all* Linux is POSIX. But not all Linux is GNU.

      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:27PM

        by Gravis (4596) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:27PM (#227573)

        *all* Linux is POSIX

        no, no they are not. there are plenty of embedded Linux systems with GUIs that don't have any shell or utilities which are requirements for POSIX. they might use some variation of libc as the underpinning for the GUI but libc does not make something POSIX.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:39PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:39PM (#227726) Journal

          Yeah, I mean I did pull that from Wikipedia. Which actually says Linux-FT is the only fully certified POSIX distribution, but seems to imply all the rest are close enough for practical purposes:

          Linux systems adhere to POSIX,[58] SUS,[59] LSB, ISO, and ANSI standards where possible, although to date only one Linux distribution has been POSIX.1 certified, Linux-FT

            - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux [wikipedia.org]

          So in that case, either there's essentially no such thing as POSIX Linux (if you mean Linux-FT, just say Linux-FT...one item is not really a category) or all Linux is POSIX Linux in which case there's still no point in adding that POSIX classifier. Of course I suppose you could have more or less strict definitions of POSIX somewhere between those two in which case that distinction could make sense...but then the distinction is still meaningless unless the person you're talking to shares your personal definition of POSIX. Which could be a reasonable expectation in a large corporation or sufficiently homogeneous community, but probably not in general.

          Of course, the other possibility here is that Wikipedia is just full of it...

      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:57PM

        by Gravis (4596) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:57PM (#227590)

        *all* Linux is POSIX. But not all Linux is GNU.

        by this logic, wouldn't it be more sensible to just call it "Linux"? i mean, it's like insisting people say "Nikes" instead of "shoes" because some shoes are Nike brand.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:26PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:26PM (#227722) Journal

          by this logic, wouldn't it be more sensible to just call it "Linux"? i mean, it's like insisting people say "Nikes" instead of "shoes" because some shoes are Nike brand.

          "Nikes protect your feet" is a dumb statement. It should just be "shoes"
          "Shoes have a swoosh mark on the side" is a dumb statement. It should be restricted to "Nikes"

          Also keep in mind there are shoes that are not Nike, just as there are GNU systems that are not Linux...and there are also Nike products that aren't shoes, just as there are Linux systems that are not GNU.

          But there are not Linux systems which are not POSIX, so in that case saying Linux alone will suffice. There's no point in saying POSIX Linux -- it's like saying "rectangular square".

          Although apparently the "all Linux are POSIX" statement is a bit disputed. Wikipedia says: "Linux systems adhere to POSIX,[58] SUS,[59] LSB, ISO, and ANSI standards where possible, although to date only one Linux distribution has been POSIX.1 certified, Linux-FT." -- which to me would imply that either all Linux distros are POSIX (so there's no point in specifying it) or NO Linuxes are POSIX except Linux-FT, in which case you should just say Linux-FT if that's the one you want. Depends how strict you want to get about what you consider POSIX I guess. And I suppose there would be definitions of POSIX in which the term "POSIX Linux" would make sense...

          • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:19PM

            by Gravis (4596) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:19PM (#227745)

            "Nikes protect your feet" is a dumb statement. It should just be "shoes"
            "Shoes have a swoosh mark on the side" is a dumb statement. It should be restricted to "Nikes"

            i agree. this makes the argument to say there are very few times you should write "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux" because it would have to be something specific to GNU and not just POSIX(-like) systems.

            But there are not Linux systems which are not POSIX

            again, i dispute this because there are a lot of embedded Linux systems which have no shell at all, not even hidden/inaccessible ones.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @12:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @12:38AM (#226771)

    I drive a Firestone/Toyota. I call it that so that you can tell the difference between mine and someone who drives a Pirelli/Toyota or a Michelin/Toyota.

    People will jump all over you if you call the GPL a virus that poisons everything it touches. It is true, that is inaccurate FUD. However, the real virus is GNU. Let any GNU utility touch your project and you'll forever have to call it GNU/whatever.

    Remember, the tools are much more important than the work. Michelangelo's paintings would never happen if it wasn't for Crazy Guido's Discount Brush Emporium, but sadly you philistines refuse to call it the Guido/Pietà.