Linked by David Adams on Fri 12th Aug 2011 03:55 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Red Hat The Fedora developers have decided that Fedora 16 will not use Btrfs by default. The announcement was made by Josef Bacik, Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat. Instead the switch to Btrfs filesystem has now been postponed to Fedora 17.
Permalink for comment 484838
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Luminair
by Kebabbert on Sat 13th Aug 2011 10:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

"we are working very hard on trying to get everything more stable and it is a slow going process. With your help we will be in a better situation for F17."

That is a mature comment. Maybe next year they'll be ready for serious use. It can't be much longer before they catch ZFS. It's been a long fricking marathon.

You know, it took ZFS several years AFTER it was released to iron out most bugs. It takes years to make a filesystem stable.

If a kernel crashes, then you loose a few hours of work. If a filesystem crashes, you loose years of work. It is much more important that a filesystem is bug free, than a kernel.

There are many sysadmins that wont let ZFS into their server halls, because it is too young. ZFS is almost 10 years old today. But ZFS had a good reputation with a strong team. Sun knew servers. They knew server halls. They knew Enterprise and had much experience. Sun only did enterprise. Still ZFS is not really trusted yet by sysadmins.

To really believe that BTRFS will be trusted by sysadmins is a bit strange. It will take at least 10 years after it has been released. BTRFS does not have a strong team of server Enterprise guys. They are mostly some hackers that never ever been in a Enterprise server hall, nor any experience. I doubt BTRFS will be mature even after 10 years.



Regarding BTRFS performance. Just scrap that discussion. If you have a fast filesystem, then it is not safe and might corrupt your data. There is a reason ZFS is slow: it calculates many checksums all the time. If there is a fast filesystem, it does not compute checksums, and hence your data might corrupt.

I would never trust anything fast. I heard one guy said that XFS did fsck his RAID in 15 seconds or so. Well, if you fsck a 6TB raid in 15 sec, it means you never read the actual data. To read 6TB data takes many hours. Needless to say, I dont trust XFS fsck. Because it is too fast, it is not thorough.

Fast and reliable works against each other. Choose one of them, but not both. There is a reason IBM Mainframes have slow cpus: they double check calculations I heard.

Reply Parent Score: 3