“When it comes to adopting the newest technologies, Fedora is always at the front among the major Linux distributions. Well, Fedora might very well do it again by adopting a new file system for its next release. According to proposals for Fedora 16, Btrfs will be the default filesystem used in that release. The proposal has been approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. In Fedora 16, the switch from EXT4 to Btrfs will be a ‘simple switch’ – it means that major Btrfs features such as RAID and LVM capabilities will not be forced onto users.”
Long time coming. Very good to finally be here.
So there is finally a fsck.btrfs that can fix errors? Or are the fedora people really so insane and they make this filesystem the default without a error fixing fsck.btrfs? The moment we have a good fsck.btrfs I’ll switch to btrfs.
Nope, still no working fsck, or really, any debugging/recovery tools.
Yep, Fedora is still going ahead despite the lack of an fsck tool.
There are lots of “in progress” features for btrfs; seems a little premature to make it the default. An option, sure, but certainly not the default.
They won’t go on BTRFS if no btrfs.fsck is released.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689509
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689512
https://lwn.net/Articles/446984/
Might be better off without a fsck. Look at BTRFS’s spiritual ancestor ReiserFS if you need a reason why
So Oracle were not so bad guys after all!
Not flaming but is btrfs mature (stable enough) to be shipped as a default filesystem. I am not trying to start a filesystem war.
It’s been available for testing on live systems in Fedora since at least F10, so yeah they can be reasonably sure that it won’t blow up. Well as sure as any Fedora release that is, they do like to dance on the bleeding edge at times. I know I myself have been running it for a year or so now with no real hiccups I didn’t cause for myself.
Not sure if the performance is up to par in all areas though. I recall benchmarks showing the FS being a bit on the sluggish side for database type stuff when compared to EXT4 and other common FS.
I have no idea exactly as to why, but I am getting really poor performance under BTRFS. I’ve tried with -o compress and without, single-disk and multi-disk configurations etc. yet the problem persists. Luckily though I don’t really need high performance, but someone who does should first test BTRFS out and see if it is fast enough for their needs.
You shouldn’t optimise much before even making your product feature complete, or should you?
Seeing version numbers like 0.19, disk format changes, and no clear roadmap makes me think this is raw.
Edited 2011-06-14 07:44 UTC