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 <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