default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Ric Wheeler]

On 02/28/2014 07:56 AM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote:
> Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? My point is we should 
> choose the best solution, even if it takes a little more work to get it up and 
> running. I want to know what it will take to make sure btrfs is good to go as 
> default and then see if the end result will out weigh the effort put in.
>
> -James 

Having more people jump in to help on btrfs is always welcome - it should be a 
choice for users, even if not the default choice.

Also note that it is not just an issue of "ready" or not, it has some specific 
workloads that cause even a rock solid instance of btrfs heart-ache.

People often get confused with the arrival of a new choice and obsolescence of 
the "old" technologies. That is definitely not the case with XFS or ext4, both 
have a ton of active developers and lots of new features. On top of the many new 
device mapper targets, we have some very compelling features for the "mature" 
stack :)

Ric