Fujitsu Developer Talks Up Btrfs File-System, Declares It Ready To Use

[nanonyme]

it is not zfs-like. zfs can't even change its size. zfs is obsoleted by btrfs.

fuck brainless bsd trolls. zfs have zero decades of testing/tuning on linux/freebsd

Wanting to change the size of a single volume either in ZFS or Btrfs sounds mainly like a brainfart to me. In reality you have a pool of volumes, each volume spans physical medium and you change pool size by adding and removing volumes.

[pal666]

... when you can se the real ZFS!

it is not zfs-like. zfs can't even change its size. zfs is obsoleted by btrfs.

A dependable filesystem takes decades to test/tune, ZFS has already done that and is well designed and implemented. Fuck the license zealots.. its free and it's available now, just use Gentoo, or Debian ... or FreeBSD.

fuck brainless bsd trolls. zfs have zero decades of testing/tuning on linux/freebsd

[leech]

People will wait until its in RHEL before its considered stable.

I'll have to agree with you there. Hell, it took RHEL forever to even add ext4 support, when all other distributions had already been using it by default for a long time.

[bulletxt]

Hahahahah.

Btrfs is everything but stable and ready to use in corporate environment. These company say such bulshit because they want end users to find out all bugs and report them
Btrfs is not going anywhere before 2016 and maybe even 2017.

[uid313]

People will wait until its in RHEL before its considered stable.

[Ardje]

Since am an Ubuntu user I hope they will make this default for next interim release now. So enough users can test for the LTS!

I actually hope that too!
Since I am not really an ubuntu user, or when I install ubuntu, it will be on ext4.
I need btrfs to be production ready, so there is nothing better than a lot of users complaining :-).

[Ardje]

Though my experience is home-use, I've been using Btrfs for a couple of months now as my torrent partition's file system and I have to say, that although I've had a few power outages and other problems, btrfs has been performing quite well for me. The write speed is far the fastest of them all and it's been found to be reliable by my own experiences. Also, online defrag works quite well. (although it shouldn't be necessary, I'm doing it every now and then)

I'm using it with Linux Mint 17, which doesn't even have the latest kernel.

Home use is probably one of the few things that doesn't make it go dead that fast.
Try using the "stable" functions:
- run a scrub, while deleting a snapshot, while updating the filesystem interleaved with snapshotting it.
Do this for multiple volumes.
I have used btrfs without problems on my desktop. But I never ever have seen btrfs handle scrub+update+delete (happens when you have a cdn), and see btrfs survive it's own corruption.
Unfortunately corruption only happens with 1TB+ data...
scrubs are necessary to defrag the metadata, but also to check the disk contents.

[david_lynch]

... when you can se the real ZFS!

A dependable filesystem takes decades to test/tune, ZFS has already done that and is well designed and implemented. Fuck the license zealots.. its free and it's available now, just use Gentoo, or Debian ... or FreeBSD.

The performance of zfs is just not good enough to meet the demands of Linux users

[Turion]

Though my experience is home-use, I've been using Btrfs for a couple of months now as my torrent partition's file system and I have to say, that although I've had a few power outages and other problems, btrfs has been performing quite well for me. The write speed is far the fastest of them all and it's been found to be reliable by my own experiences. Also, online defrag works quite well. (although it shouldn't be necessary, I'm doing it every now and then)

I'm using it with Linux Mint 17, which doesn't even have the latest kernel.

[johnc]

Wait, didn't we just see corrupted snapshots with 3.17.1 a couple of weeks ago? That's not what I'd call "ready to use".

That's good enough for Linux.