[gh02t]

I agree, I love BTRFS and have used it for ages, including some small scale production systems. But I know it still has some edge cases as you mention, which made me wonder: what is the impediment to having those cases fixed? BTRFS has been around long enough and even has some decent commercial support from a few vendors, so it seems like we can't just discount it as "it's open source and nobody is motivated to fix those long tail problems." Is there some kind of design issue that makes them hard?

[tinco]

edit: sorry, cheap shot at Facebook. I have no idea why BTRFS edge cases are not being fixed.

What I do know is that ZFS recently released a feature specifically for the hobbyist/frugal community. The feature allows you to grow an existing RAID array, something a financially sound business would never do. So no customer of anyone supporting ZFS would ever use this, and it took significant effort of ZFS developers to implement this. Not to mention that introducing feature potentially introduces weird behaviour in ZFS that might endanger its (reputation of) stability.

I'm super happy with it, (as my company was not in fact financially sound when we invested in our on-premise storage hardware), but if I was CEO of ZFS I'm not sure I'd sign off on it.

[alophawen]

Sarcastic comment adding nothing to the discussion. How rare.

[Brian_K_White]

I could already grow mdraid and reiserfs forever ago.

[tinco]

Yes.. but you couldn't grow ZFS. I don't understand what your point is.

[Brian_K_White]

Point was the post is about losing reiserfs, and people are presenting virtues of zfs and btrfs as reasons why we don't need reiserfs any more, and this virtue of zfs is unremarkable.

[cestith]

Unless Im'm terribly mistaken one could always grow ZFS, but it was via adding more pools.

[tecleandor]

To be exact, either: adding more vdevs to your pool, or substituting ALL your drives in a vdev with a bigger size.