Recent Redhat decision may also be related to their investment in Storage products Ceph (~175 million in 2014) and GlusterFS (~125million in 2011) not just about stability of btrfs.
As someone who previously experienced with distributed storage like emc-Isilon and also fuse-based glusterfs, btrfs has huge potential for enterprise storage. It does also need more effort on testing front at this moment. hoping that soon btrfs will become default fs for most Linux distros.
I read somewhere (probably on HN) that it could be related to their acquisition of Permabit, a company which seems to be producing Linux software for deduplication, compression and thin-provisionning. This seems more in-line with what btrfs has to offer.
What do distributed software-defined storage/distributed filesystem projects have to do with a CoW filesystem? Alternatives to btrfs are things like XFS and ext4.
As someone who previously experienced with distributed storage like emc-Isilon and also fuse-based glusterfs, btrfs has huge potential for enterprise storage. It does also need more effort on testing front at this moment. hoping that soon btrfs will become default fs for most Linux distros.