For me, the motivators to wait for LogFS are mainly the facts that it
can work on traditional block devices, and not only on pure flash:
1. It works on normal block devices and it supports transparent compression
Today, a 64 GB SSD/flash-based media costs ~about the same as a 1 TB
hard disk. This makes flash very expensive to use; compression can
compensate that cost a bit (will depend on the usage, of course).
I believe there is no other Linux filesystem which can do transparent
compression on block devices.
2. It does wear-levelling also on normal block devices
Although it doesn't sound normal to do wear-levelling twice (most
flash-based block devices do wear-levelling on their own), I had a flash
corruption after just ~one month of using RAID bitmap on a IDE-flash
disk formatted with ext3. Apparently, device-level wear-levelling wasn't
spreading updates of RAID bitmap file well enough.
(...)
I too wouldn't use LogFS today in a production environment - it is still
not feature complete and not widely tested.
I wouldn't use btrfs or ext4 today for the very same reason.
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
--