Last edited by smitty3268; 01-19-2013 at 12:49 AM.
It uses data and/or metadata mirroring on other devices/partitions if you choose so. I can't really comment on the other points, since I'm a user and not a developer of the FS. But why do they matter in every-day circumstances, anyway?
Originally Posted by ryao
Most features people want in btrfs (besides transparent compression, CoW, and snapshots, those are always awesome) are there for enterprise data integrity. The main use case of ZFS is in massive high throughput storage clusters that can't have any data loss ever, while operating in often a dozen or more drives in raid. They depend on atomics, data integrity and duplication, and on the FS itself being steeled against its own metadata getting tainted.
Originally Posted by GreatEmerald
~user of btrfs on my main Arch install. Because snapshots are the best system restore ever.
btrfs isn't really just about performance, it's about capabilities. btrfs is hugely different from a simple partition format like ext4; btrfs incorporates volume management and redundancy and all sorts of other features that are usually layered on top of simple formats with tools like LVM and mdraid. The capabilities btrfs brings to the table are really useful for distributions, which is why there's always a desire to make it default, but the tools and performance may well need to catch up before this is plausible.
Originally Posted by mayankleoboy1
Btrfs snapshots alone would really simplify the murky waters that are Linux system restore utilities right now. A decent UI on that, scheduled snapshotting, and easy restore would kick the crap out of other options.
Originally Posted by AdamW
Tangentially, I just had a reaffirming interaction with btrfs. My main machine lost power, btrfs had a superblock go bad and would segfault on boot, from my recovery disk brfsck --repair fixed it easy. Once that tool becomes the mainline fsck.btrfs it would have recovered no problem. Promising!