I really, really, really wish people would STOP with the whole "it works for $SilconValleyCorp so it must work for me" or "$SiliconValleyCorp does it, so I must".
It only leads to disappointment in the case of the former and wholly un-necessary over-engineering in the case of the latter.
(a) You do not know *how* or *where* Facebook use BTRFS
(b) Even in the unlikely event they use it "everywhere", they have far more redundancy on every layer than you will ever have. So they don't care if a random BTRFS instance borks itself.
(c) Facebook probably employ the guy who invented BTRFS and an army of kernel developers on top of that .... how much in-house support do you have for BTRFS ?
(S)he does, their employees explained it many times. They're very public about it.
> So they don't care if a random BTRFS instance borks itself.
They do, according to Christ Mason (IIRC) they investigate every instance of btrfs corruption, regardless of how unimportant the machine and data were. They're not any more frequent than with any other filesystem.
> Facebook probably employ the guy who invented BTRFS and an army of kernel developers on top of that
Not an "army" (only a few developers), but you're correct here.
> they STILL have not fixed RAID5 in BTRFS
Why would they? It's a niche technology that's only interesting to a few home users. I am a home user and have no use for it (or any of the alternatives like raidz).
>(a) You do not know how or where Facebook use BTRFS
Their engineering team has posted a few of their use cases.
>(c) Facebook probably employ the guy who invented BTRFS and an army of kernel developers on top of that .... how much in-house support do you have for BTRFS ?
Uh, about as much as any other file system? Those changes and improvements are upstreamed to the kernel anyway. It's not like Facebook has some sort of special version of btrfs they are using.
>As far as I am concerned, the fact that they STILL have not fixed RAID5 in BTRFS says everythng you need to know.
As far as I know, the issue with RAID5 in btrfs is highly complex and it would take quite a bit of dedicated effort to make it work. I suppose it's a architectural shortcoming of btrfs. But then again, it's RAID5, a/k/a something only shoestring hobbyists really care about. Hence why no one is bothering to make it work in btrfs.
At the end of the day, btrfs is perfectly fine for home users and workstations. ZFS beats it out on servers, that's fine. Traditional filesystems are not the end-all be-all of storage anymore. No one has made a better ZFS because the industry has moved on to things Ceph, vSAN, AzureHCI, etc.
Actually, I would. Not because I'm a BSD hater, because we actually use a lot of BSD at $work.
But instead because I reckon I could safely win a bet with you that Netflix do not use the vanilla version of FreeBSD.
Most people I know would agree with me that the secret sauce will forever stay secret.
Sure, without a doubt Netflix contribute stuff back to FreeBSD. But I betcha it's not ALL the stuff. :)
The same goes for other famous FreeBSD users, e.g. Juniper Networks.
I'm happy to recommend FreeBSD to people, but if they're looking for Netflix or Juniper level network performance, they'll need to know they'll have to do the donkey work themselves because there's not a cats chance in hell they'll magically get it "out of the box".