default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 26 February 2014 11:08, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> No, that isn't true.  Without wide adoption you may not have any
>> impetus for btrfs to get better.  However, it getting better is
>> dependent upon wider development, maintenance, and testing.  I'm not
>> sure we are in a position to actually do that, and that is the bulk of
>> my hesitation.  Throwing something upon Fedora users as a default with
>> the hopes that it will improve is pretty horrible in my opinion,
>> particularly if we aren't able to actually fix things they find.
>>
>
> Does Fedora or more specifically Red Hat have anyone working on Btrfs
> upstream that can help guide the path forward?  It can't be possibly be the
> right decision to let Btrfs be struck in the current position for too long.
>
>
It isn't stuck. It is just moving slowly. Remember when btrfs first came
out and the older filesystem guys said it could take up to 10 years to get
it ready? And a lot of people said it won't take that long... Well it turns
out that filesystems are very very hard to get right and corner cases are
machine bricking versus crash and reboot. Those corner cases get found by
people bricking their systems which means you have to be ready to say "Hey
I don't need this enterprise box and its data.... let me throw my workload
at it." which is a small subset of users out there. That means progress is
slow and painful.



> Rahul
>
> _______________________________________________
> server mailing list
> server at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/attachments/20140226/b7035a10/attachment.html>