[opensuse] Red Hat banishes Btrfs from RHEL
Found in the news: https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/08/16/red_hat_banishes_btrfs_f... "Red Hat has banished the Btrfs, the Oracle-created file system intended to help harden Linux's storage capabilities." Regards, Lew -- "When a government enforces lawlessness it is no longer a government of the people. It is a tyranny." -- P Gendron -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 17/08/17 23:25, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
Found in the news:
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/08/16/red_hat_banishes_btrfs_f...
"Red Hat has banished the Btrfs, the Oracle-created file system intended to help harden Linux's storage capabilities."
It was discussed on lwn, iirc. The reason? RedHat no longer employs (he moved to facebook) the only member of staff they had working on the filesystem. With no in-house expertise, they don't want to support it. Simples. Cheers, Wol -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 08/17/2017 03:40 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
With no in-house expertise, they don't want to support it. Simples.
They have more money than God, and if they wanted to support it they could lure some competent Devs, even if it took them 6 months to get up to speed on integrating it into their products. (This is all the guy who USED to work there did anyway. He wasn't so much a developer as an integrator. There is another angle. Oracle takes Red Hat's main bread and butter release and adopts it as their own, without so much as a thank-you. All perfectly legal of course, but not exactly what you would expect from a company with Oracle's clout. Then, Oracle becomes dependent on BTRFS, but does no work to integrate it or support development. So Red Hat feels like they are working for Oracle these days. Maybe the same with Facebook, I have no clue what distro those guys run. Red Hat's own customer base isn't all that into BTRFS. And they claim integration into all the kernels they support was costly (but it was all done by one guy, so just how costly could it have been?) So Red Hat drops the one thing they don't need, and foists all that workload onto Oracle. We don't really know if their ex-BTRFS guy left for greener grass, or because he could see the writing on the wall, or because he was shoved out the door. All we have on this is HIS side of the story, and he's not saying that much. I'd be more interested in how much effort Suse and Opensuse put into BTRFS. How many bodies does it cost? -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 18 August 2017 at 00:56, John Andersen <jsamyth@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/17/2017 03:40 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
With no in-house expertise, they don't want to support it. Simples.
They have more money than God, and if they wanted to support it they could lure some competent Devs, even if it took them 6 months to get up to speed on integrating it into their products. (This is all the guy who USED to work there did anyway. He wasn't so much a developer as an integrator.
There is another angle. Oracle takes Red Hat's main bread and butter release and adopts it as their own, without so much as a thank-you. All perfectly legal of course, but not exactly what you would expect from a company with Oracle's clout.
Then, Oracle becomes dependent on BTRFS, but does no work to integrate it or support development. So Red Hat feels like they are working for Oracle these days. Maybe the same with Facebook, I have no clue what distro those guys run.
Red Hat's own customer base isn't all that into BTRFS. And they claim integration into all the kernels they support was costly (but it was all done by one guy, so just how costly could it have been?)
So Red Hat drops the one thing they don't need, and foists all that workload onto Oracle.
We don't really know if their ex-BTRFS guy left for greener grass, or because he could see the writing on the wall, or because he was shoved out the door.
All we have on this is HIS side of the story, and he's not saying that much.
I'd be more interested in how much effort Suse and Opensuse put into BTRFS. How many bodies does it cost?
SUSE has 2 or 3 of it's kernel developers taking care of the btrfs stack for SLE, contributing upstream, and contributing to openSUSE. Reading the recent forum posts from the former Red Hatter who used to take care of BTRFS before he was let go, I am under the impression that SUSE are seen as providing a significant amount of the leadership and engineering in the btrfs stack. Speaking to SUSE's own kernel guys, they are far more modest and talk very highly of the collaboration they have with other developers, such as those from Fujitsu and Facebook (who are using btrfs heavily in production). On the testing side of things, btrfs is not treated any differently from any of the other filesystems supported in the stack, so it's hard to quantify btrfs' share of the 'bodies' in QA. But me, myself, I, got heavily involved in one btrfs bug we shook out as part of the SLE 12 SP3/Leap 42.3 development process, which was originally found by openQA (using the shared tests between SUSE/openSUSE), reproduced by openQA (using all of the combined hardware used by SUSE/openSUSE), and resolved by the previously mentioned developers. Speaking personally, I have a habit of being involved in debugging occasional weird, sticky, system-wide filesystem bugs and if I think over the last few years btrfs is running even against ext4 and xfs in terms of numbers of times I've come across it in that context; but btrfs takes the lead in 'number of times the bugs actually got fixed', which is a really positive thing. Regards, Rich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday, 18 August 2017 7:55:22 ACST Lew Wolfgang wrote:
Found in the news:
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/08/16/red_hat_banishes_btrfs_f rom_rhel/
"Red Hat has banished the Btrfs, the Oracle-created file system intended to help harden Linux's storage capabilities."
Regards, Lew
Good. Btrfs is banned on any system I look after. In my experience it is basically a broken vacuum cleaner (i.ow. It sucks badly). I’ve had more than one system that became unbootable/unrecoverable using btrfs and had to be wiped and reinstalled from scratch (thankfully, non critical systems), thanks to broken default installation parameters, missing fs tools and poor (or non-existent) documentation. Never again. -- ============================================================== Rodney Baker VK5ZTV rodney.baker@iinet.net.au CCNA #CSCO12880208 ============================================================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Am Samstag, 19. August 2017, 17:04:27 schrieb Rodney Baker:
On Friday, 18 August 2017 7:55:22 ACST Lew Wolfgang wrote:
Found in the news:
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/08/16/red_hat_banishes_btrfs _f rom_rhel/
"Red Hat has banished the Btrfs, the Oracle-created file system intended to help harden Linux's storage capabilities."
Regards, Lew
Good. Btrfs is banned on any system I look after. In my experience it is basically a broken vacuum cleaner (i.ow. It sucks badly). +1 though many of those writing here do not want to hear this :-)
Brtfs is another fancy feature - rich something the world does not need but causing any amount of trouble in a real world application. We had had this discussion several times. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr.-Ing. Dieter Jurzitza 76131 Karlsruhe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
Dr.-Ing. Dieter Jurzitza -
John Andersen -
Lew Wolfgang -
Richard Brown -
Rodney Baker -
Wols Lists