The difference is this one (layerfs) was vibe coded™ and the other (btrfs) is battle tested in mission critical systems for years in the Linux kernel and used by many companies in the SNP 500.

Do not be fooled by the "vibes" of the website design which many here are. If it is too good to be true, it most likely is.

▲

trollbridge 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's what I was concerned about. An unstable filesystem is worse than no filesystem at all; I'd really like to switch to bcachefs but it simply needs to have a few more years under its belt before I'll be comfortable with it (particularly for some of its best use cases, where it becomes responsible for backups).

▲

0x457 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"btrfs is battle tested"

Only in a sense that i went to a battle and lost all of its data to corruption. Should be removed from in-tree so people don't accidently use it.

▲

ryan-c 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would not trust btrfs with anything mission critical.

	▲	ikidd 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's fine if you stay away from it's raid5/6. And realize it isn't going to let you know when you have a mirror fail until you try to boot it and it won't come up.

▲

otabdeveloper4 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> is battle tested in mission critical systems for years

And still crashes and corrupts filesystems all the time.

(I have one server platform where just doing `insmod btrfs` immediately locks up the server, hard, without even any kernel panic or log message.)

	▲	teiferer 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How recent is that code?