4 ms·

This is exciting! Although I'm worried about BTRFS being their new default. I've had horrendous experiences with it and I wouldn't recommend it! I hope it has

This is exciting! Although I'm worried about BTRFS being their new default. I've had horrendous experiences with it and I wouldn't recommend it! I hope it has improved and requires to be less hands-on otherwise it's a massive turn-off

Nux 6y ago
BTRFS is the one change that makes me most excited. It has improved a lot, I am sorry they default to it only for workstations and not for servers, too. Hope to see it back in RHEL!
- curt15 6y ago
  Btrfs is notoriously ill-adapted to database workloads. Although interestingly, some people seem to run Postgres on ZFS just fine, even without disabling copy-on-write like one is advised to do for btrfs.
  - ravi-delia 6y ago
    A lot of it comes down to the default settings. ZFS is just well tuned for a workload like that, and I believe automatically detects some features of the disk it's on. BTRFS by comparison is worse off by default, but if you tune it right it runs pretty much the same.
  - Nux 6y ago
    Indeed, even OpenSuse disables checksumming etc on /var.
xorcist 6y ago
It certainly has improved. Don't worry though, you can still select another filesystem at install time.
skykooler 6y ago
I've always thought Jolla's biggest mistake with Sailfish OS was using BTRFS as the default on a mobile operating system. (They later switched back to more conventional file systems.)
- m4rtink 6y ago
  It certainly was (not opening up their code is close second) - the outdated ~2013 era BTRFS on a small 16 GB slow eemc flash & default allocation policy (that resulted in space for metadata running out after s while) turned out to be very very bad. Thankfully on all supported hardware post Jolla 1 they switched to EXT4 on LVM and had no storage issues at all since then.
whalesalad 6y ago
My Synology DS918+ network fileserver uses BTRFS for everything. Knock on wood it has been incredibly reliable and easy to manage.
ravi-delia 6y ago
BTRFS has seen incredible improvement, especially for a workstation type system. I'd probably use ZFS for a system with a bunch of disks I want to mount independently of the OS drive, but that's more a matter of tooling than technical issues. ZFS is just more ergonomic when it comes to managing pools.

Nux 6y ago

BTRFS is the one change that makes me most excited. It has improved a lot, I am sorry they default to it only for workstations and not for servers, too. Hope to see it back in RHEL!

curt15 6y ago
Btrfs is notoriously ill-adapted to database workloads. Although interestingly, some people seem to run Postgres on ZFS just fine, even without disabling copy-on-write like one is advised to do for btrfs.
- ravi-delia 6y ago
  A lot of it comes down to the default settings. ZFS is just well tuned for a workload like that, and I believe automatically detects some features of the disk it's on. BTRFS by comparison is worse off by default, but if you tune it right it runs pretty much the same.
- Nux 6y ago
  Indeed, even OpenSuse disables checksumming etc on /var.

xorcist 6y ago

It certainly has improved. Don't worry though, you can still select another filesystem at install time.

skykooler 6y ago

I've always thought Jolla's biggest mistake with Sailfish OS was using BTRFS as the default on a mobile operating system. (They later switched back to more conventional file systems.)

m4rtink 6y ago
It certainly was (not opening up their code is close second) - the outdated ~2013 era BTRFS on a small 16 GB slow eemc flash & default allocation policy (that resulted in space for metadata running out after s while) turned out to be very very bad. Thankfully on all supported hardware post Jolla 1 they switched to EXT4 on LVM and had no storage issues at all since then.

whalesalad 6y ago

My Synology DS918+ network fileserver uses BTRFS for everything. Knock on wood it has been incredibly reliable and easy to manage.

ravi-delia 6y ago

BTRFS has seen incredible improvement, especially for a workstation type system. I'd probably use ZFS for a system with a bunch of disks I want to mount independently of the OS drive, but that's more a matter of tooling than technical issues. ZFS is just more ergonomic when it comes to managing pools.