[nix23]

>because there is likely a combination of wanting to maximise their investment into these technologies and developing the in-house expertise to support them very well, and also in having a number of staff who are deeply committed to them and don't want to change.

Not sure if you would risk your customers data just because of that. I never had any problems with XFS.

>At some level, they must understand that both XFS and LVM are over 25 years old

Being a User of ZFS (on FreeBSD) myself, zfs is not much younger 2006.

>and RedHat in particular, don't have a competitive filesystem to offer.

That i really don't understand too. Maybe they think for "small" stuff HW-Raid or LVM is good enough and everything bigger is Ceph or Gluster anyway.

[rleigh]

Absolutely agreed, the customer's data is paramount, and I think from the perspective of supporting that with their well established in-house expertise, it makes sense.

However, XFS isn't perfect. As I wrote in a separate reply in this thread, my team in a previous position suffered catastrophic dataloss when a power cut took out some massive storage arrays. XFS does not handle power loss gracefully, and in two cases, the whole storage array was unrecoverable and required restoring from tape.

I use ZFS on FreeBSD (and Linux) too, and while it dates back to 2006 and was designed around ~2000, LVM and XFS date back at least a decade prior to that. They are a generation apart, and ZFS builds upon the knowledge of that previous generation, and its successes and its flaws.

Regarding competitive stuff, that's a mystery to me as well. My organisation went with some proprietary IBM storage array kit, but it was a real pain. Required hand compiling kernel modules against the RHEL kernel. And it still resulted in the above dataloss issues.