&gt; * RAID is utterly broken: - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spinics.net&#x2F;lists&#x2F;linux-btrfs&#x2F;msg48561.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spinics.net&#x2F;lists&#x2F;linux-btrfs&#x2F;msg48561.html</a><p><i>sigh</i> From the message that you linked:<p>&quot;FWIW... Older btrfs userspace such as your v3.17 is &quot;OK&quot; for normal runtime use, assuming you don&#x27;t need any newer features, as in normal runtime, it&#x27;s the kernel code doing the real work and userspace for the most part simply makes the appropriate kernel calls to do that work.<p>But, once you get into a recovery situation like the one you&#x27;re in now, current userspace becomes much more mportant, as the various things you&#x27;ll do to attempt recovery rely far more on userspace code directly accessing the filesystem, and it&#x27;s only the newest userspace code that has the latest fixes.&quot;<p>If you look, you see that the guy reporting the problem was using a <i>very</i> new kernel, but a <i>one-year</i>-old btrfs-tools package. It makes no sense to use tools that are <i>substantially</i> older than the kernel you&#x27;re running. He <i>might</i> have had much better luck with recovery (that is, he might have been able to get a rw volume with all his data, rather than an ro volume -<i>with all his data</i>- out of the process) with a recent tools package.<p>&gt; <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spinics.net&#x2F;lists&#x2F;linux-btrfs&#x2F;msg47845.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spinics.net&#x2F;lists&#x2F;linux-btrfs&#x2F;msg47845.html</a><p>Maybe I&#x27;m reading <i>this</i> one wrong, but it looks like the summary of the issues are:<p>* For multi-disk arrays with disks of varying sizes, each smaller disk does not receive data until all larger disks have as much or less free space than the smaller disk in question. [0]<p>* The read scheduling algo is currently naive, using PID evenness to determine the disk in a pair to read, rather than current IO load on the disk.<p>Did I miss something, or misunderstand something? If I didn&#x27;t miss anything, I don&#x27;t see how you can get &quot;RAID is utterly broken&quot; from &quot;RAID has less-than-optimal write and read scheduling&quot;.<p>&gt; * It&#x27;s useless for databases or VM images (disabling datacow is a ugly hack IMHO)<p>I can&#x27;t agree. I use btrfs on spinning rust to store my multi-terabyte Postgres 9.4 DB. It works well enough for my low-to-medium-volume [1] workload.<p>&gt; * Lot&#x27;s of ENOSPC bugs (just look at the mailing list)<p>I don&#x27;t run into those, and haven&#x27;t for literal <i>years</i>.<p>&gt; * Quota is utterly broken...<p>Yes, quota is a difficult problem that continues to be unsolved.<p>&gt; * You need to run the latest kernel...<p>Yes. Agreed.<p>&gt; ...if not: Data corruption bugs ...<p>I haven&#x27;t run into any, <i>ever</i> on the handful of systems on which I use BTRFS.<p>&gt; ...if not: ... deadlocks<p>True. There <i>was</i> that unlink&#x2F;move deadlock in 4.1. I hit it from time to time when updating my copy of the metadata from the Gentoo Portage tree. Happily, it only blocked operation on the affected file. The remainder of the system kept running along, and a -ugh- reboot unblocked the operation. [2]<p>Look. I&#x27;m not saying that btrfs is feature-complete, suitable for <i>every</i> workload, or that any given person <i>should</i> use it for <i>their</i> workload. I&#x27;m just saying that the situation is <i>far</i> less dire than you&#x27;re making it out to be. I&#x27;ve been using it as the rootfs for at <i>least</i> one of my daily use systems for the past 5.5 years, and haven&#x27;t had <i>any</i> trouble out of it [3] in the past 2+ years.<p>[0] That phrasing was abysmal. Here&#x27;s an example: Given an array of one each of 3GB, 2GB, 1.5GB devices. the 2GB device will get data after 1GB has been written to the 3GB device. The 1.5GB device will get data after 0.5GB of additional data has been written to each of the 3GB and 2GB devices (making a total of 1GB additional data written to the array before the 1.5GB device starts getting data). AIUI, if you&#x27;re running in RAID1 mode, then the same logic applies, but with paired devices.<p>[1] Most definitely <i>not</i> web-scale workload.<p>[2] I don&#x27;t know if a unmount&#x2F;remount cycle would have <i>also</i> worked. The wedged operation happened on my rootfs, so I had no way to test this.<p>[3] Except for the unlink&#x2F;move deadlock in 4.1.