On 2015-09-16 19:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:21:26PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> On 2015-09-16 12:45, Martin Tippmann wrote:
>>> 2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>:
>>> [...]
> [...]
>>>  From reading the list I understand that btrfs is still very much work
>>> in progress and performance is not a top priority at this stage but I
>>> don't see why it shouldn't perform at least equally good as ZFS/F2FS
>>> on the same workloads. Is looking at performance problems on the
>>> development roadmap?
>> Performance is on the roadmap, but the roadmap is notoriously
>> short-sighted when it comes to time-frame for completion of
>> something. You have to understand also that the focus in BTRFS has
>> also been more on data safety than performance, because that's the
>> intended niche, and the area most people look to ZFS for.
>
>     Wait... there's a roadmap? ;)
>
Yeah, maybe it's better to say that there's a directed graph of feature 
interdependence.  I was just basing my statement on the presence of a 
list of project ideas on the wiki. :)