There's Talk Again About Btrfs For Fedora

[smitty3268]

Are you incapable of rational thought as well as being unable to post anything except nonsense? LOL

Me: I sometimes dream the sky is red.
You: "the sky is red." What an idiot, who would say that? That's a valid quote. The rest was blather. btrfs is untrustworthy. zfs rocks.
Me: /facepalm

[smitty3268]

Are you incapable of rational thought as well as being unable to post anything except nonsense? LOL

Me: I sometimes dream the sky is red.
You: "the sky is red." What an idiot, who would say that? That's a valid quote. The rest was blather. btrfs is untrustworthy. zfs rocks.
Me: /facepalm

[GreatEmerald]

btrfs cannot really compare to this. My understanding of btrfs is somewhat superficial, but lets compare:

btrfs has no ditto blocks, so if metadata is corrupted, there is a strong possibility that it will be unable to recover.

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?

[zanny]

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?

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.

~user of btrfs on my main Arch install. Because snapshots are the best system restore ever.

[AdamW]

in most benchies i see on Phoronix, EXT4 runs circles around BTRFS in most of the tests (except when you set compression in BTRFS).
Dont see why it should be default.

Most linux noobs probably use ubuntu anyway (i am one too).

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.

[zanny]

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.

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.

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!