BTRFS deprecated by Red Hat



  • ⁠Btrfs has been deprecated

    The Btrfs file system has been in Technology Preview state since the initial release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. Red Hat will not be moving Btrfs to a fully supported feature and it will be removed in a future major release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
    The Btrfs file system did receive numerous updates from the upstream in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.4 and will remain available in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 series. However, this is the last planned update to this feature.
    Red Hat will continue to invest in future technologies to address the use cases of our customers, specifically those related to snapshots, compression, NVRAM, and ease of use. We encourage feedback through your Red Hat representative on features and requirements you have for file systems and storage technology.

    quote from release notes for RHEL 7.4

    your opinion?!



  • Still not seen it used in a production server, ever.
    Not that ive seen thousands of production linux servers like others here.


  • Service Provider

    @momurda said in BTRFS deprecated by Red Hat:

    Still not seen it used in a production server, ever.
    Not that ive seen thousands of production linux servers like others here.

    Saw someone have an issue with it within the last hour, actually.

    Also, Facebook has had it in production for years.



  • I have a few servers here with it.


  • Service Provider

    Honestly, I think RH jumped on the BtrFS bandwagon too early when BtrFS was not ready and they just thought that the Cult of ZFS stuff would carry it. It has not. In practice, no one cares about new filesystems and it didn't make sense in the RH ecosystem. Now they see it as a waste of resources, as it probably is. BtrFS is mostly for a NAS or bare metal world, a world in which RH doesn't really play at all.



  • I had it on Fedora 25. Used some features for like two days and never did anything with it again. Actually forgot I set it up that way and went to check the size of a volume and realized there weren't any. So safe to say it won't affect me.



  • And... now we know the rest of the story. BtrFS was likely abandoned because RH has an alternative strategy using their own in house tool called Stratis that is going to be available as soon as Fedora 28.

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Stratis-Red-Hat-Project


  • Service Provider

    Looks likely that the deprecation is politically, rather than technologically, motivated.



  • BtrFS is solid. Red Hat often doesn't provide all of the options that might make sense, they often try to limit what they offer to what is sensible for their customers. The more that they offer, the more that they have to support. They want to balance how much they offer to the cost to them to support it.



  • @scottalanmiller said in BTRFS deprecated by Red Hat:

    Looks likely that the deprecation is politically, rather than technologically, motivated.

    I would say commercial. They always try to avoid nih so they are stronger in knowledge and can sell support more easily


  • Service Provider

    @matteo-nunziati said in BTRFS deprecated by Red Hat:

    @scottalanmiller said in BTRFS deprecated by Red Hat:

    Looks likely that the deprecation is politically, rather than technologically, motivated.

    I would say commercial. They always try to avoid nih so they are stronger in knowledge and can sell support more easily

    I would only agree here if they were not developing their own in house product. This is very much like the Xen / KVM situation a decade ago.



  • @scottalanmiller said in BTRFS deprecated by Red Hat:

    @matteo-nunziati said in BTRFS deprecated by Red Hat:

    @scottalanmiller said in BTRFS deprecated by Red Hat:

    Looks likely that the deprecation is politically, rather than technologically, motivated.

    I would say commercial. They always try to avoid nih so they are stronger in knowledge and can sell support more easily

    I would only agree here if they were not developing their own in house product. This is very much like the Xen / KVM situation a decade ago.

    sorry bad wording of mine. I meant that they always try to not sell NIH stuff because having an internal product always gives them more knowledge an therefore competitive advantage at consultancy level. No one is more expert in a product then the author of the product.

    My view of RH has always been the same: If they can escalade in a community and have employees inside a community with relevant contributions they can reach adequate knowledge, but if someone else is better positioned in the community, they tend to lag knowledge and very often switch on another product.

    I've seen this as an explanation for Xen/KVM, now this seems the same with FS, and other times they did the same.

    This is not bad or good it is just the market.That's understandable to me.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.