For the same reason spoken languages often have semantic structures that make a literal translation often cumbersome and incorrect, translating nontrivial code from one language into another without being a near expert in both langauges, as well as being an expert in the project in question, can lead to differences in behaviour varying from "it crashes and takes down the OS with it", to "it performs worse".
apt_install_coffee
joined 2 years ago
A rather overly simplistic view of filesystem design.
More complex data structures are harder to optimise for pretty much all operations, but I'd suggest the overwhelmingly most important metric for performance is development time.
Yes, but note that neither the Linux foundation nor OpenZFS are going to put themselves in legal risk on the word of a stack exchange comment, no matter who it's from. Even if their legal teams all have no issue, Oracle has a reputation for being litigious and the fact that they haven't resolved the issue once and for all despite the fact they could suggest they're keeping the possibility of litigation in their back pocket (regardless of if such a case would have merit).
Canonical has said they don't think there is an issue and put their money where their mouth was, but they are one of very few to do so.
Opengear in Brisbane; development teams often use Linux.
Brand new anything will not show up with amazing performance, because the primary focus is correctness and features secondary.
Premature optimisation could kill a project's maintainability; wait a few years. Even then, despite Ken's optimism I'm not certain we'll see performance beating a good non-cow filesystem; XFS and EXT4 have been eeking out performance for many years.
License incompatibility is one big reason OpenZFS is not in-tree for Linux, there is plenty of public discussion about this online.
I'll also tac on that when you use cloud storage, what do you think your stuff is stored on at the end of the day? Sure as shit not Bcachefs yet, but it's more likely than not on some netapp appliance for the same features that Bcachefs is developing.
Did the citizens of that country take the loan? No
Did they benefit at all from the loan? No
Did the world bank make any effort to ensure the above were answered 'yes'? No
When you make a leveraged loan are you supposed to be guaranteed that the it was risk free? No
If leveraged loans could be made risk-free 'breal your legs' style the way the world bank does to countries, banks would be offering loans to every punter who wanted to bet on the dogs.
In addition to the comment on the mentioned better hardware flexibility, I've seen really interesting features like defining compression & deduplication in a granular way, even to the point of having a compression algo when you first write data, and then a different more expensive one when your computer is idle.
This is actually a feature that enterprise SAN solutions have had for a while, being able choose your level of redundancy & performance at a file level is extremely useful for minimising downtime and not replicating ephemeral data.
Most filesystem features are not for the average user who has their data replicated in a cloud service; they're for businesses where this flexibility saves a lot of money.
Depends on the failure mode; If your USB4 cable has enough noise (due to poor cabling, damage, or interference), it may negotiate down to 40Gbps (or even 20Gbps) instead of 80Gbps instead of outright failure, but it might also intermittently crap out if it negotiates a certain speed and then get moved.
If your device requires a speed that can't be reached, yeah it'll pretty much always fail on a bad cable.
view more: next ›
They're not trivializing, just noting that the different things you need to discuss for kernel development compared with other work. It is very different in a lot of ways, and does shape your perspective. I also find it interesting.