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

[240Hz]

actually, when running on spinning rust you might be right.
I run btrfs everywhere and where I have old and slow mechanical disks performances are not optimal.

however the benefits of using btrfs are more valuable than the speed (in my case);

Probably it would make sense to propose btrfs as the default fs only when installing on SSD, where btrfs performances are on par (or, sometimes better) than classic fiesystem.

Even on SSD , BTRFS performance is much slower than XFS or EXT4 , look at benchmarks and get back to me

[cynic]

Even on SSD , BTRFS performance is much slower than XFS or EXT4 , look at benchmarks and get back to me

well, if you have benchmark saying so, show me then.

[itoffshore]

I've been running BTRFS on the desktop & on servers for 7-8 years with no issues.

It's a good choice for a fully encrypted root filesystem as it does not need a separate /boot & GRUB can boot LUKS nowadays.

[JustinTurdeau]

Good to see no one is taking the btrfs-bashing FUD campaign seriously any more. I've also been using it for about 8 years with zero problems.

[Space Heater]

All that the dev said is that they have already enough problems on their own

The developer stated that btrfs has too many data loss bugs, the context doesn't change that. Which is exactly why I'm hesitant to agree that it should become the default file system.

[Vistaus]

Is there any point on using it on desktop? Performance? No. Stability? I doubt.

I can ask the same things about Wayland, yet you're advocating that piece of software very much.

[Vistaus]

No, Stratis always has been intended for RHEL.

I thought RHEL tested stuff in Fedora before integrating it in RHEL? So it makes sense for Fedora to use Stratis then.

[Vistaus]

Ummm. F____ no!!!! While BTRFS has some merit on the server, on the desktop ... hell no. I spend about half my time on the desktop editing movies and pictures and a copy on write file system is shite for that.

... so you just choose a different file system during partitioning. Problem solved.

[nbecker]

I was an early convert to btrfs on fedora, but wouldn't really recommend it now, especially as a default. There are 2 reasons:
1. Measurements on phroronix show btrfs is slower than ext4 on many workloads
2. I once ran into the issue where btrfs says it's out of space, when df says it's not. It took a lot of googling to find the fix (I think it
had something to do with rebalancing? Don't actually remember)

[JustinTurdeau]

Is there any point on using it on desktop? Performance? No. Stability? I doubt.

Subvolumes, snapshots, cp --reflink, online defrag, checksums/scrubbing, well-defined behaviour on power loss, built-in RAID with sane re-balancing (unlike ZFS), etc, etc.

Write-in-place filesystems are obsolete relics of history. Some people don't seem to realize this because they have very basic expectations of a filesystem and no understanding of what they're missing out on.

I do a ton of code compilation and it's nice to think how much drive wear I'm avoiding by using ccache with the file_clone option enabled. The older hard_link option was always too risky to use (not having proper copy-on-write semantics).