Examining Btrfs
&gt;Moving beyond the question of individual disk reliability, btrfs-raid1 can only tolerate a single disk failure, no matter how large the total array is. The remaining copies of the blocks that were on a lost disk are distributed throughout the entire array—so losing any second disk loses you the array along with it. (This is in contrast to RAID10 arrays, which can survive any number of disk failures as long as no two are from the same mirror pair.)<p>This feels a little disingenuous to me. This is a distinctly RAID-1 problem. This doesn&#x27;t feel like a BTRFS problem. Everyone knows RAID-1 = 1 drive loss.<p>&gt;I don&#x27;t have anything specific to say about btrfs-raid0, other than the fact that it&#x27;s raid zero. Any failure of any disk loses all data on the array. This is not a storage system, it&#x27;s a virtual woodchipper. Avoid.<p>If the previous paragraph felt disingenuous, this one feels downright malicious. Not only does  BTRFS RAID-0 have no differences from normal RAID-0, but the blanket recommendation to avoid it makes no sense. There are many use cases for RAID-0, but the author is acting like this is some kind of problem with BTRFS.