On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:17 PM Peter Gordon <peter(a)thecodergeek.com> wrote:
This is a good argument for having Fedora officially support BtrFS as
possible installation option, yes;
It already is a release blocking (supported) file system for install
time option. Has been for ~10 years.
BtrFS might have significant feature advantage over Ext4, yes; but
far it has only seen production use from a handful of companies, and
even then, not for very long. (The BtrFS wiki page  lists most of
these users only as of late-2018 -- just under two years.)
Facebook since 2015. SUSE/openSUSE on the desktop and on servers since
2014, by default. Are you suggesting they can do it and we can't?
In contrast to this, Ext4 has been the default FS in many enterprise
systems for well over a decade: For instance, Google transitioned its
systems to Ext4 in January 2010 , and transitioned Android to Ext4
in December 2010 . And most modern Linux distros made Ext4 their
default filesystem at around the same time.
Google has been using btrfs as part of Crostini, which I mention up
thread, as the file system to support native Linux apps on Chrome OS.
It would appear they're choosing different things for different
purposes to solve specific problems.
And in Fedora we think users want to improve the life of their
hardware, get better efficiency with reflinks and snapshots for
containers, and improve the responsiveness of the desktop by including
IO isolation as part of a better resource control solution, and not
have corrupt data pass through to user space or to their backups,
silently. Btrfs provides all of these things, and helps solve users'