BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Josef Bacik josef at
Thu Jul 14 01:07:42 UTC 2011

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at> wrote:
> Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
>>> as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
>> If f16 gets kernel 3.1 (or backported stuff into 3.0), IMHO there is no
>> reason to slip it one release
> there are many reasons!
> replacing an essential part of the OS as filesystems are with
> finally not well tested piece of new software is simply a
> dangerous game with no benefit
> "hopefully stable at release" is my definition of untested

That's not the case at all, I'm not sure where you are getting that.
If we don't have a released offline fsck by Alpha, which IIRC is the
beginning of August we're not even going to make the switch.  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.  Thanks,


More information about the devel mailing list