> Exactly. Which is why the Meta infrastructure is built completely on btrfs > and its features. We have saved billions of dollars in infrastructure costs > with the features and robustness of btrfs. > > Btrfs doesn't need me or anybody else wandering around screaming about how > everybody else sucks to gain users. The proof is in the pudding. If you read > anything that I've wrote in my commentary about other file systems you will > find nothing but praise and respect, because this is hard and we all make > our tradeoffs. > Sure, of course. The problem is that Meta doesn't need a general-purpose file system. And yes, and in general, Meta is not the kind of company that makes technically sound decisions. Tell me, does Meta still store user passwords in plain text? At least in March 2019, Meta was fined for that. Should we mention that the btrfs used at Meta differs from the btrfs in the kernel? Has "btrfs check" stopped completely destroying the file system? Has the problem with RAID5/6 (write hole) been solved in more than 20 years of development? Btrfs is not the file system that users want to see as a general-purpose file system. It works, of course, in certain scenarios. But if you run out of space, you even can't delete a file from it. That's the design—bravo! I'm surprised that a technically knowledgeable person would use "god-level" arguments. What file system have they saved money on compared to? How does a specific use case align with general-purpose scenarios? Why did you switch to discussing personal attacks in response to technical criticism? > > Thanks, > > Josef
