Thanks, Adam!
I can very easily see that that's the case.
I guess the thing that's bugging me is that the btrfs is not even included in the distro(s) as an option. It's not in their RPM repo set. At least that's what I *think* I've been finding. If that's accurate, it's pretty heavy prejudice.
@jrredho @mikes1988 RHEL intentionally has as small a package set as possible, because every package in RHEL is a substantial cost to Red Hat. it has to be supported for ten years. There's been a strong focus in RHEL 9 and RHEL 10 development on not including anything that isn't necessary. RH's supported filesystem story is the whole stratis + LVM thing, so including an alternative one, from RH's perspective, is just a pure and substantial maintenance cost for no significant benefit.
I know that these questions are tiresome, but I'm at a point where, once the metrics get put into Workstation at f43, I'm moving on.
While I'd like to do that with my current disk setup, I'll probably move back to #Debian, where I'd been for at least 15 years prior to moving to #fedora 4 years ago. I never changed my disk arrangement or fs configuration in those 15 years.
So the filesystem strategy is a long term investment in my view.
