There's A Proposal To Switch Fedora 33 On The Desktop To Using Btrfs

[mmmbop]

BTRFS has been great for development with Docker. Its storage driver really works smoothly and takes full advantage of BTRFS snapshots.

I was really left scratching my head when RedHat abandoned BTRFS to start something new right as BTRFS was stabilizing.

[andyprough]

andyprough Speaking about openSUSE..

Sorry, I have a policy against clicking links from sketchy people.

[CochainComplex]

One question - btrfs wiki states btrfs-prog version should be on par with kernel version.

What is worse btrfs-progs>kernel btrfs-progs<kernel?

This issue is overseen quickly during kernel Backporting Often you have to Backport btrfs-progs by hand. Because of dependency chains.

[chuckula]

That's it! Larabel is just posting these suggestions to Fedora so he can make clickbait articles from them!

I'm not even mad. I think it's a smart idea!

[starshipeleven]

Btrfs is not going anywhere

Yeah, SUSE/OpenSUSE, Rockstor, Synology and others are not important

[starshipeleven]

andyprough Speaking about openSUSE..

https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2020-06/msg00328.html

Soon...

Oooh, look at how they placed KDE before GNOME in the list of desktops, that's a clear sign they think it is more important

[starshipeleven]

Better idea is to figure out what the most common hardware used for Fedora installations and adjust the defaults for file system, editors, etc etc to that type of installation, while still keeping security sensitive knobs set to secure and practical defaults. That's never going to happen because people prefer ideology to surveyed facts. It would require collecting installation time hardware surveys much like Steam and Ubuntu do that the tinfoil hat brigade keep very vocally criticizing the practice as if the sky is falling.

This is a bullshit approach, the entire point of DEFAULT is that there is ONLY ONE, so that it is the most tested and stable and good enough for most workloads.

[EarthMind]

looking at this article this decision makes no sense to me for desktops. i can understand to use it for servers due to some features of Btrfs. i thought that Btrfs still has many issues.

For desktop use this difference in benchmark you won't notice. If you need a partition with high random IO, create a separate one with xfs or btrfs nocow. Lower benchmark results don't take away all the benefits in functionality. Try it I'd say.

Other than that, the information on their mailing list was really educating. I didn't know about the inode separation for example

[fuzz]

Snapshots alone on OpenSUSE Tumbleweed have saved me many many times.

[starshipeleven]

For desktop use this difference in benchmark you won't notice. If you need a partition with high random IO, create a separate one with xfs or btrfs nocow. Lower benchmark results don't take away all the benefits in functionality. Try it I'd say.

with btrfs you can nocow on a file/folder basis too, so no need for partitions.

But in general I always, always separate OS partition from payload partitions as this allows me to quickly clone around generic OS images in a snap, without pulling around terabytes of databases and other random crap from one server to the next.