BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Eric Sandeen sandeen at redhat.com
Thu Jul 14 01:57:37 UTC 2011


On 7/13/11 4:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 13.07.2011 23:51, schrieb Farkas Levente:
>>> So there's my long ass explanation of why VMs on Btrfs suck.  I'm
>>> sorry, I'm aware of the problem and I'm trying to fix it, but it's a
>>> slow going process.
>>
>> 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
> 
> +1
> 
> bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
> unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
> existing and over a long time well working things - never!

You might have said the same thing about ext4 in F<whatever it was>
and yet, here we are, shipping it as default for many releases now, with
little trouble.

Not every big change to Fedora breaks badly, although I can see how some
might get that impression.   ;)

-Eric


More information about the devel mailing list