The suse folks adopting btrfs says more about suse than it says about btrfs. I still remember in the past how I got tricked into believing ReiserFS (3, not the 4 that never made it into the kernel) was a good filesystem despite the broken fsck, the lack of defragmenting tools and many other issues listed there : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS#Criticism It was also the only time I've had a FS really eat my data after forced shutdowns (cutting off power). They kept pushing ReiserFS as the default until 2006, 5 years after the release of ext3 which added journaling to the ext family of filesystems. Ext3 was a much better filesystem all around. Suse only switched to ext3 because of the controversy with ReiserFS's author and the uncertain future of Reiser4, not because they admitted that ReiserFS was bad.

I will not make the mistake of putting any worth to suse's words again. Doing it again with btrfs shows they really have a knack for going edgy with filesystems while absolutely no other linux distribution is willing to recommend btrfs.

I trust the Red Hat guys to show more care and this is what they had to say only a year ago about btrfs:

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/37l2mf/i_am_matthew_...

"The btrfs developers keep telling us that it's not ready, so we're following that. (From one of our storage exports: "Btrfs will be ready in two years. The problem is, that's also going to be true next year, and in two years....") We try to be first where we can, but not at the cost of data loss for users.

-- Matthew Miller, Fedora Project Lead"

Doesn't look good to me.

As long as RH or Debian do not start recommending btrfs one cannot give it consideration in good conscience.