On 10/04/17 10:43, Tom H wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:01 PM, David Sommerseth
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I would never run btrfs on *any* production server, regardless of
>> currently available kernel versions. Because it is not deemed ready
>> for production yet. For testing I would be willing to experiment with
>> it, as there I can tolerate data loss. But never ever in production.
> 
> It's being used in production at Facebook and in Oracle Linux and SUSE Linux.
> 
> I don't know how SUSE does it but Oracle Oracle has kernel and
> kernel-uek packages. The kernel package is the same as SL's and the
> kernel-uek package provides a more recent kernel that goes
> hand-in-hand with the more recent btrfs tools.

Last time I checked, SUSE Linux typically had disabled all of the really
useful btrfs features which makes it more interesting than XFS/ext4.
But I'll admit my reference point is a few years old by now (approx as
old as RHEL7 is).

What Facebook does, I have no idea how they use it.  It might even be
used in areas where data loss is acceptable due to data being replicated
elsewhere too.  Or again, that some features are disabled again.
Sailfish OS (by Jolla) have used btrfs by default on their mobile OS,
that worked fine there too.  But I doubt that also used the most
interesting features.

In regards to Oracle, IIRC, they also employ many of the upstream btrfs
developers.  But I wonder how well they support it for customers
installing it in production, and which features are fully supported.

That is one of the true things which makes it hard to compare btrfs too
even between distros.  Each distro have their own opinion of which
features could/should be enabled.


-- 
kind regards,

David Sommerseth