Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

Lennart Poettering mzerqung at
Wed Feb 23 12:38:52 UTC 2011

On Tue, 22.02.11 22:25, Jon Masters (jonathan at wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> > BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can
> do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I
> don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am
> concerned that this will lead to less testing and exposure to full LVM
> use within the Fedora community. Instead, I'd like to counter-propose
> that everything stay exactly as it is, with users being able to elect to
> switch to BTRFS (sub)volumes if they are interested in doing so.
> Should the switch to BTRFS by default happen, this will be one more
> thing I will have to fix immediately during installation. The list grows
> longer and longer over time - please don't make this change.

Aren't you exaggerating your conservatism a bit?

Are there actually new Fedora features you do support? The only signal
you appear to be sending all the time is "NO!".


Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the devel mailing list