On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Chris Mason [off-list ref] wrote:

On 08/02/2017 04:38 AM, Brendan Hide wrote:

quoted

The title seems alarmist to me - and I suspect it is going to be misconstrued. :-/

Supporting any filesystem is a huge amount of work.  I don't have a problem with Redhat or any distro picking and choosing the projects they want to support.

It'd help a lot of people if things like
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status is kept up-to-date and
'promoted', so at least users are more informed about what they're
getting into and can choose which features (stable/still in dev/likely
to destroy your data) that they want to use.

For example, https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status says
compression is 'mostly OK' ('auto-repair and compression may crash'
looks pretty scary, as from newcomers-perspective it might be
interpretted as 'potential data loss'), while
https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:BTRFS#Compressed_btrfs_filesystems says
they support compression on newer opensuse versions.

At least inside of FB, our own internal btrfs usage is continuing to grow.  Btrfs is becoming a big part of how we ship containers and other workloads where snapshots improve performance.

Ubuntu also support btrfs as part their container implementation
(lxd), and (reading lxd mailing list) some people use lxd+btrfs on
their production environment. IIRC the last problem posted on lxd list
about btrfs was about how 'btrfs send/receive (used by lxd copy) is
slower than rsync for full/initial copy'.

-- 
Fajar