[nolist_policy]

Redhat doesn't ship btrfs because they don't have any engineers working on it and thus can't provide support for it. Anything that ships in RHEL is comes with a strong support guarantee that they just couldn't hold up for btrfs.

The SAS controllers may be a similar thing, maybe they don't have the hardware anymore to regression test against.

[chasil]

Amazing how well btrfs works in Fedora.

The first thing to do with a rhel install to restore complete functionality is to remove the stock kernel.

With extreme prejudice.

[FireBeyond]

What support "guarantees" does Fedora come with?

The two are not contradictory. Fedora's btrfs functionality can absolutely be exceptional - nothing about that means that Red Hat has engineers working on or able to effectively support it.

Disclaimer: I am an ex-Red Hat employee, though I was nowhere near RHEL.

[chasil]

If there is no value in the technology within it, then why grasp it? Let it go, and cut the Fedora/rhel tie.

Conversely, there is no value in the limitations imposed upon rhel. OpenELA gives us a voice in letting them go.

[em-bee]

rather they don't have any customers demanding it. if they had, hiring engineers to support that should not be the problem.

incidentally, i never had a chance to figure out what the big deal was with the centos stream change, because i was already forced to switch to debian because btrfs was removed from the centos kernel.

[p_l]

CentOS being in lock-step with RHEL minus support also included certain certifications that applied to RHEL also applied to CentOS, most importantly if you were in the business of selling to US government or related customer.

[chasil]

> i was already forced to switch to debian because btrfs was removed from the centos kernel.

Funny!