Approved: Fedora 33 Desktop Variants Defaulting To Btrfs File-System

[240Hz]

The default for Fedora is XFS, a highly performant and stable filesystem. BTRFS is buggy and suffers from severe performance issues as can be seen in all XFS, EXT4 vs BTRFS benchmarks

[Mario Junior]

Michael I'd really like to an up to date benchmark on btrfs specifics:

*space_cache=v2
*noatime
*compress-fore=zstd:n for all levels 1 to 15
*compress=lzo
*no quotas
On HDD's and on SSD and nvme.

Those settings are what most experienced admins and devs are using in #btrfs channel.

I use this on OpenSUSE:

[Templar82]

BTRFS is buggy and suffers from severe performance issues as can be seen in all XFS, EXT4 vs BTRFS benchmarks

Are you thinking of EXT4?


https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...esystems&num=4

[andyprough]

Red Hat's prior deprecating of Btrfs support puts them in a bit of an awkward position now and will be interesting to see if Btrfs is a success on Fedora whether they revisit their Btrfs status for RHEL 9.

I don't see a conflict here.

Of course you see it - it's the 900 pound gorilla in the room. RedHat went to all their customers and said btrfs wasn't trustworthy in an apparent attempt to steal business away from SuSE and Oracle, and apparently it was an approach that did not work at all. But keep talking in circles around the conflict anyway.

[scratchi]

Apparently, the aspiring Fedora Workstation user is clamouring for all these "advanced features" yet somehow can't seem to cope with Vi.

hehehe, this made me laugh, good one

[gbcox]

SUSE and Facebook declared it stable before. Fedora adopting it won't change the minds of ideologues and fanboys.

I was under the impression that SUSE only used BtrFS for the root partition, /home is XFS. The only thing that I have heard about FB is that they are running it on alot of servers (which isn't suprising since they are sponsoring the project). Those servers are no doubt clones, so that isn't the same level as throwing it out there to all your workstation users. So the Fedora endorsement is a big deal.

[sireangelus]

i've been using btrfs on ubuntu for the past six months... it's excruciating. I've been using a standard criucial mx500 256gb ssd on 2 different systems.

Updates takes sometimes even 10 times more than ext4.

I have i/o stalls. Lots of them. Inconsistent performance all across the board. (i7 4770k + 16gb of ram, and also l5640 with 40gb of ram)

[useless]

I was under the impression that SUSE only used BtrFS for the root partition, /home is XFS.

Not anymore. It has been a year or two since tumbleweed defaulted to a subvolume for /home. Leap 15.2 follows the same approach. Dunno about Leap 15.1 and previous versions.

EDIT: grammar

[useless]

i've been using btrfs on ubuntu for the past six months... it's excruciating. I've been using a standard criucial mx500 256gb ssd on 2 different systems.

Updates takes sometimes even 10 times more than ext4.

Thank apt for that. They do a lot of needlessly fsync calls IIRC.

I have i/o stalls. Lots of them. Inconsistent performance all across the board. (i7 4770k + 16gb of ram, and also l5640 with 40gb of ram)

In what kind of workload?

[gbcox]

Of course you see it - it's the 900 pound gorilla in the room. RedHat went to all their customers and said btrfs wasn't trustworthy in an apparent attempt to steal business away from SuSE and Oracle, and apparently it was an approach that did not work at all. But keep talking in circles around the conflict anyway.

Interesting, I never imagined that particular possibility. I don't believe that Redhat was using BtrFS as a lever to steal business away from SuSE and Oracle. No one I know is willing to risk their job on a BtrFS deployment. The risk/benefit/performance ratio just isn't there. You're right the Redhat deprecation is one of mysteries about all this that no one seems willing or able to discuss.