Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?
alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Sun Nov 6 10:30:26 UTC 2011
I think btrfs as default would be somewhere between very brave and
negligent at this point until it has a good well tested fsck tool and some
of the underlying other performance problems are sorted out nicely.
If your desktop is a bit iffy it crashes maybe it annoys people, it's
hard to use it's a bit of a niggle, and you can switch. If your fs
crashes or you get a bad block, or you lose power at the wrong moment you
have a problem if your fsck isn't rock solid (or plain doesn't exist). If
your fs goes wrong you are in 'reinstall' territory, which is a whole
different level of severity to 'my desktop sucks'.
Worse than that fs bugs in development fs code can slowly and subtly
corrupt your data without showing errors, so even your backups are
corrupt in places. Trialing a new fs on end users without enormous
testing and care is not smart. It needs huge planning, verification work,
consistency checkers, fsck tools that *work* and are tested heavily.
Plus in a funny way btrfs is now in part un-needed, With the move to SSD
devices (which looks like it will speed up rapidly due to the
catastrophic flooding) the seek and I/O rate problems mostly go away
for existing fs types.
More information about the users