btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

[Gene Czarcinski]

On 10/05/2014 08:25 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Gene Czarcinski <gczarcinski at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/05/2014 09:50 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2014 11:32 PM, "Andre Robatino" <robatino at fedoraproject.org>
>> wrote:
>>> openSUSE 13.2, scheduled for release in November, will have btrfs as the
>>> default filesystem. What are the chances that F22 will follow suit,
>>> assuming
>>> openSUSE has no major problems with it?
>>>
>>> https://news.opensuse.org/2014/09/22/
>>>
>> My plan is to push for F23, I'm still wrapping up some balance bugs and some
>> other issues we've found at work and then this will be my next priority.
>> Suse benefits from having a narrow "supported" criteria, like only use it
>> with lots of space and don't use any of the RAID stuff, plus they have two
>> kernel guys on it and Dave Sterba who is now in charge of btrfs-progs.
>> Fedora unfortunately has me who has Facebook work to do and Eric who is a
>> professional fs juggler. We will get there, and when we do it will be less
>> painful than its going to be for Suse since they will have fixed it all for
>> us ;).  Thanks,
>>
>>
>> F23 sounds about right to me.  I am very much a fan of BTRFS and currently
>> use it on all of my systems with few problems but I think that F22 is a bit
>> early to make it the default.
>>
>> However, I do believe that there a couple of things that need to happen to
>> make thjings easier/better:
>>
>> 1.  The Fedora developers/maintainers need to take BTRFS more seriously and
>> address btrfs related problems seriously and quickly.  Yes, I know that
>> BTRFS swap draining is a little bit difficult to deal with when you are up
>> to you rear end in alligators but, a little more attension please.
> Nope.  See, we deal with what we think we can deal with and what is
> impacting the most people.  There are two of us.  A non-default
> filesystem with a lot of known issues isn't high on the priority list.
> If you would like to see more attention on btrfs, find some people
> that share your interest to triage and work on the bugs (which are all
> upstream bugs) or chip in yourself.
Nope, I understand.  However, what I said is with the understanding to 
change to using BTRFS as the default ... whenever it takes place and I 
stand by my statement of needing more attention as a requirement.
>
>> 2.  Currently anaconda supports supports installation of /boot on BTRFS
>> either as a simple directory on a BTRFS volume (yes, I don't understand why
>> someone would do this but ...), as a simple directory on a rootfs ("/")
>> subvolume, or as a spepate subvolume.  Grub2.02 also supports this and
>> grubby will support if "real soon now" when pjones can get enough time to
>> examine and integrate my grubby patches adding BTRFS support.
> This isn't a requirement for btrfs by default.  It's a nice to have.
Using btrfs by default needs more users to want to use it.  Making it 
easier for more users to install into btrfs will see increased use.  It 
will also demonstrate that Fedora development/maintenance is paying 
attention to BTRFS.

Now, there is another question which has not been voiced: what is the 
"plan" for filessystems in Fedora (and by implication RHEL)?  Is it 
BTRFS?  Or, perhaps is it LVM with XFS?  IIRC, some time ago it was 
stated that the plan was to move to BTRFS.  It is not clear to me that 
everyone is onboard with that decision.  Or, perhaps that decision is 
being reconsidered.
>
>> Anyway, we are getting close.
> If it's getting close, it's entirely because of Josef's and the SuSE
> team's efforts.  They should be applauded.
>
Yes, they should!  But Fedora moving to increased use of BTRFS seems to 
be receding at the speed of time: it is always a couple of releases from 
now; go away I am busy with other stuff.  Sorry is this bothers some 
people but that is the impression I get.

Gene