| ▲ | fnordpiglet 2 hours ago | |
It is more content aware and tuned towards versioned data vs block aware among other things. There’s a benchmark as to how it impacts things in the site https://layerfs.ai/benchmarks/dsh-dedup/ I think it’s actually a fairly useful thing but I worry about something so obviously vibe coded hitting 1.0.0 and without a track record but the ideas seem pretty useful. I’ve certainly found the work tree semantics most agents and harnesses follow at scale to be obnoxious at best and it seems to tackle issues head on. | ||
| ▲ | jauntywundrkind 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Nice benchmarks, impressive numbers. 20x less space than btrfs for the deep seek harness. They even have some explanations. Files writes in btrfs snapshots recreatethe contents as opposed to storing what's changed. Btrfs has no dedupe, if multiple snapshots happen to have the same data. And small files store metadata twice in btrfs for reasons. I do think their use case is a bit pathological, checking out the same harness at every commit. Most of these btrfs gotchas don't feel like they would be super impactful to me. But really cool results none the less. | ||