BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[JB]

Josef Bacik <josef <at> toxicpanda.com> writes:

> ... 
> We aren't aiming for "hopefully stable", we're aiming for actually stable
> and reasonably safe.  If we don't meet certain basic requirements no
> switch will be made and everything will carry on as normal.
> 
> I'm not trying to shove Btrfs down peoples throats.  The last thing I
> want is to switch over to Btrfs before it's fully ready for everybody
> to be using it, which is why there are a bunch of requirements that
> need to be met before the switch is actually met.
> ...

Well, as a Fedora's point man and contributor to BTRFS, you sound good.
For that, we are glad to have you there.
But we want to test your dedication a bit ...

As you probably know, about a year ago, when BTRFS was still in early
experimental stage, during some elementary evaluation and testing that 
yielded some really disastrous results, an issue was raised that the devs
corrupted the b-tree algorithm that underlies the fs in question.
The original b-tree algorithm was a result of an academic study, formulation,
and empirical testing, and was subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Obviously, when devs do some "adjustments" to such a finely tuned algorithm,
it is imperative that they should immediately submit them for review, as is
customary. The entire alogoritm has to be verified once again.

So, basically, the entire BTRFS fs design was called into question.

Even as of today, the status of BTRFS in Linux kernel, as described by its
devs, is:
[linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git] / fs / btrfs / Kconfig config
and
[linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git] / fs / btrfs / Kconfig

BTRFS_FS
       tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
       ...
         Btrfs is highly experimental, and THE DISK FORMAT IS NOT YET
         FINALIZED.  You should say N here unless you are interested in
         testing Btrfs with non-critical data.
       ...
          If unsure, say N.

There is a suspicion by some people who follow BTRFS development that it is
a botched attempt, right from the very beginning, at its fundament, and if
so any layers put on top of it "to make it work" are equivalent to asbestos
that provides fire protection but distorts quality of the building, but will
become a liability in due time :-)
In other words, it is a product of hillbillies, wielding a compiler and
a language a la ax men.
Btw, we have seen similar software dev's "activism" in Fedora that does
exactly that, and does not not stand up to scrutiny :-)

So, what is the true state of BTRFS ?

Do *you* think this is enough to be Fedora's *default* fs ?

JB

Woman sues Disney, says pervy Donald Duck molested her.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-08-12/news/27072557_1_donald-duck-molested-theme-park