On 11/04/17 20:48, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
> 
> So the choice is between you saying "I trust XFS, I never fsck it",
> and me saying "I do not trust ZFS, I do not trust the hardware, I run
> ZFS scrub daily, I have backups, I have archives".

So lets flip this around ... Why isn't btrfs enabled by default in RHEL,
but still being a tech-preview which explicitly labels it "unsuitable
for production"?  And why haven't RHEL seen any active involvement from
RH and/or the Fedora community to add ZFS to the distro?  And why isn't
Fedora still using btrfs as the default file system, despite being
suggested a few times already?

  * Fedora 16
    <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F16BtrfsDefaultFs>
  * Fedora 17
  <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F17BtrfsDefaultFs>
  * Fedora 23

<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">https:[log in to unmask]>

Part of the answer is definitely that the btrfs file system is not
considered ready for prime time production.  For ZFS, the licensing is
probably quite an issue as well.

As I already said in an earlier mail:

   "Once Red Hat enabling ZFS on a kernel where it is native in the
    upstream kernel, not being labelled tech-preview - that day I will
    consider ZFS for production.  If btrfs reaches this stage earlier
    [than ZFS], then I will consider btrfs instead."

I trust the expertise RH have in the file system area.  In fact, I have
spent some time discussing this topic with a few of their FS developers
face-to-face several times, in addition to some of their storage driver
maintainers.  So when RH is not pushing customers unto these new file
systems, it is for a good reason.  And I choose to take RH's advise.
What you do is your decision - and I don't have a need to convince you
to change your opinion.


As I've now iterated a few times already things I've already said before
... I'm letting this be my last reply to this mail thread.


-- 
kind regards,

David Sommerseth