RE Webmin and the default Samba setting:
The samba version is (4.8.4) . It's current. The running assumption almost has to be "default" = "negotiate", which starts with the latest (SMB3.0). Otherwise, updated Windows clients wouldn't connect to it.
___________________________________________________________________
XFS doesn't handle power outages all that well either.
XFS, ZFS and others are examples of LAN administrator/Server Farm file systems that are almost guaranteed to be run on an UPS. This type of user and environs are not what OMV is targeted to.
It will keep changing. Trust me. That is why I haven't ported all of the plugins.
It will use buster. And Volker won't release it before buster 10.1, I'm guessing. So lots of time for changes.
So, in so many words, are you suggesting that the "BTRFS only" approach is still on the table? From what I gathered from the discussion thread on GitHub, there are more that a couple of dissenting opinions, about this, from experienced users.
I'm being honest when I say, I "like" the ideas behind BTRFS. Really. There's kernel integration (automated upgrades), low resource requirements, and there's the novel ability to shrink a RAID array among other unique and novel features. For these reasons, when looking for something for bit-rot protection, BTRFS was my first choice. I even signed up for the projects mailing list and sifted through a chunk of their errata. My sum total impression was, "Not Ready", but I gave it the benefit of the doubt and tried it in a single disk setup. The results? Not so good. Two serious failures, with a device that's not on-line very much.
These things appear to be obvious to those who really look at it:
BTRFS is not fully developed, the CLI utilities are still inadequate and even the experts don't really know how to "Rx" a busted file system. (I became painfully aware of this when trying to fix BTRFS filesystem issues.) Again, more votes for, "Not Ready".
_______________________________________________
- Let's just assume that BTRFS doesn't like power outages. (My anecdotal experiences are certainly not empirical.) Now, let's look at OMV's target user base which consists primarily of, "small businesses" and "home users". As previously mentioned, I'm going to estimate that thousands of these users are running without an UPS.
- Given OMV's user base - NOOB's and non-LAN admin types; the base file system requirement should be heavily biased toward stability and reliability. Along those lines, EXT4 is proven - BTRFS is not.
- Just because BTRFS is easy to write code for, doesn't negate the basic requirement for stability and reliability.
I can easily see where vfrex's comment about setting up better support for BTRF makes sense. Add support for BTRFS in the GUI and see what happens, as a sort of BETA test. But jumping into BTRFS, without broad based experience and testing, to the exclusion of all else, seems like a reckless move. There's no reason to rush this and risk the loss of a substantial percentage of the user base.
I'll get off my NOOB'ish soap box now...
I realize the final decision is Volker's and those who are working on this project (unpaid) have the liberty to do as they please.
On the other hand,, well,,, I guess we'll see what happens...