As for dtrace - that's seriously your argument? How about, Sun poured in a bunch more resources and manpower than btrfs has had? That's a much better argument.
On the topic of general Btrfs, I'm very happy for the fact that I'll be building what amounts to a NAS server, which means that it will be able to use Btrfs internally and connect to clients via NFS. Right now for my storage needs I need to use NTFS, as for the occasional times that I am forced to use Windows (mostly game-rated things), it reads nothing else but NTFS, FATs and UDF. Also with an addon it can read specifically-formatted EXT3. But it does have NFS share support - thus I'll effectively get to use Btrfs from Windows. Fun times!
Also, I just ran btrfsck today to check if everything is still going smoothly on my openSUSE installation. And it is, no errors. I did see some errors in the past, but those related to bad RAM and false positives.
And speaking of openSUSE and Btrfs, I find it too bad that Snapper is not yet ported to some of the other distros. For one, it's not in Portage. And I'll need it for my NAS server, running Gentoo. I don't suppose there will be any issues manually compiling it, though. And perhaps I could look at how adding things to Portage works, while I'm at it.
Its worth having a look at some of the data corruption reports on the mailing list, eg
* User decides to try out BTRFS, finds that files get corrupted
* Devs suggest some test cases to narrow down issue.
* User finds that tests case give corruption on ext4 as well
* Turns out to be hardware problem
Moral: there are hardware issues that you may not notice for a long time with ext4. btrfs will spot them straight away as i checksums all your data.
So you say, if only we had a distro made by the same untrustworthy people that develop btrfs, then btrfs could be the default filesystem for that untrustworthy distro. It's magic! The untrustworthy btrfs combined with an untrustworthy distro somehow makes btrfs trustworthy? Two untrustworthies make trustworthy? :confused:
With logic like that, you should be a politician. :rolleyes:
The fact that ZFS is used as default in a widely-trusted OS does mean ZFS is trustworthy.
The fact that btrfs is not used as default in any widely-trusted OS means that btrfs is not trustworthy.
This is not rocket science. But feel free to keep grasping at straws and posting nonsense.
The truth is that no filesystem is magically 100% trusted or untrusted.
If Fedora moved the default btrfs tomorrow, would you say it was completely untrusted today and completely trusted tomorrow? Of course not.
The truth is that it's 99.9% trusted right now, and developers are just waiting a while until it gets 99.99% trusted before they deploy it more widespread.
Perhaps Sun had a different trust cutoff that they required. Or perhaps the FS it was replacing at the time just wasn't as trusted as EXT4 is by current linux distros (since the replacement doesn't need to be 100% trustworthy, just equivalent to whatever it is replacing), which is probably more likely. Or perhaps btrfs isn't as solid as ZFS was - the point is that you can't take a simple statement like you are and try to spin it into proof of something that it's not. Real life is messy, not black and white.