Red Hat Appears To Be Abandoning Their Btrfs Hopes

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Red Hat Appears To Be Abandoning Their Btrfs Hopes

Red Hat has (again) deprecated the Btrfs file-system from their Red Hat Enterprise Linux product, but this time it appears it may be for good...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Red-Hat-Deprecates-Btrfs-Again

[macemoneta]

I've been using BTRFS for going on 6 years now, as single devices (for corruption detection) and as RAID1 for availability on multiple systems and drives. It has saved me from a failed drive controller that was corrupting data it wrote to the platters, and it has never failed me. Given the option, I wouldn't go back to EXT4/LVM2/mdraid. If it gets pulled from Fedora, I'll switch to another distribution before switching to another filesystem.

[Steffo]

So, what is actually the justification? Aren't they convinced from the quality?

[Jumbotron]

Good. It was never ready for 24/7 Enterprise use. Stop wasting time on it. Continue using rock solid XFS and contribute to ZFS if that's where you want to go Red Hat.

[chuckula]

ZFS on Linux may not be mainlined into the kernel but there are certainly vendors out that that provide very strong support for it and it receives quite a bit of development attention.
We have a vendor that provides a turn-key ZFS on Linux file storage system and it's extremely stable and provide excellent and easy to use snapshot access in case you want to retrieve a file.

[q2dg]

Why?? Which would be the alternative? ZFS is feasible?

[schmidtbag]

So, what is actually the justification? Aren't they convinced from the quality?

Yeah I'm not sure I understand this either. To me it seems they don't like how it's considered a "technology preview", which enterprises are not fond of. However, considering the money Red Hat makes, I don't see why they couldn't be the ones to invest money into pushing it out of that stage.

Nowadays, such phrasing means very little. It's basically just so developers have no legal obligation to address an immediate problem. If something gets corrupted, the Btrfs devs can just say "oops - well it's still a beta, you should've used it at your own risk" when honestly that's BS at this point. I'm sure Red Hat would continue to support Btrfs if it had an official stable release.

Oh well, not my problem - I've been using Btrfs with compression for over a year and it's been perfectly fine for me.

[starshipeleven]

I'm sure Red Hat is going to switch to Bcachefs now.

[duby229]

I'm pretty sure I sensed innuendo in there that Redhat was expressing interest in a new filesystem with the same intentions btrfs had. They more or less asked their customers to give them feedback on desires for features. That's where I think the innuendo is.

[starshipeleven]

Nowadays, such phrasing means very little. It's basically just so developers have no legal obligation to address an immediate problem. If something gets corrupted, the Btrfs devs can just say "oops - well it's still a beta, you should've used it at your own risk" when honestly that's BS at this point. I'm sure Red Hat would continue to support Btrfs if it had an official stable release.

FYI: all Linux drivers are "use at your own risk", so is most opensource stuff.
It's not like you can go and sue ext4 devs if your filesystem fucks up and eats your data, or AMD/NVIDIA if your GPU drivers crash and you lose a competitive Overwatch match for world championships or something.