Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

Josef Bacik josef at
Wed Feb 23 21:47:31 UTC 2011

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at> wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>> 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.
> And I'd like to counter-counter-propose that we just stop using ANY kind of
> subvolumes or volume management by default and just default to plain old
> partitions. IMHO, LVM causes more problems than it fixes. Sure, you can
> easily add storage from another disk, but in exchange there's no
> straightforward way to resize your partitions, at least none of the common
> partition editors can do it. There's also a performance penalty.

Sorry I should clarify, when I say use Btrfs's volume management stuff
I mean just doing normal partitions and then creating a Btrfs
filesystem and then add disks to the fs as required.  Thanks,


More information about the devel mailing list