On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4 August 2017 at 16:46, Solomon Peachy <pizza@shaftnet.org> wrote:
> ...it fails the most basic requirement of a filesystem -- to not
> eat data.

Me also; I've tried btfs three times now -- in one case telling me I
had no free space after a few weeks when clearly there was tens GBs
free, one time needing to wipe and reformat as writes trudged to a few
thousand bytes per second and and the other time destroying my
file-system when I ran out of battery power. I think "it's getting
better, we promise" only works for so many years. I've never had a
problem with EXT3/4 or with XFS. YMMV.

Yeah... I was very excited about RAID 6 capability and starting using it in 2013. I took all the necessary precautions, backups, etc. and never lost data. I waited and waited for it to be declared stable and followed the mailing list threads. Then the announcement came in July 2016 that RAID 5/6 was toxic and a year later, it's still not fixed. That was it for me and I switched to XFS and counted my blessings I wasn't burnt as some people have been. Then there was this: https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79fvDDPaIoY&t=18m28s

I believe it's a good decision on Redhat's part. At some point you have to fish or cut bait.