Hi, sorry for my tone - it&#x27;s beyond rational discussion - however I still think it&#x27;s not totally coming from nowhere:<p>[RAID]<p>&gt;sigh From the message that you linked:<p>The part below your quote is interesting.<p>&gt; General note about btrfs and btrfs raid.  Given that btrfs itself remains 
a &quot;stabilizing, but not yet fully mature and stable filesystem&quot;, while 
btrfs raid will often let you recover from a bad device, sometimes that 
recovery is in the form of letting you mount ro, so you can access the 
data and copy it elsewhere, before blowing away the filesystem and 
starting over.<p>I have hotplug and online-replace with ZFS and mdraid. btrfs wants a special degraded remount that might or might not be able to recover to rw someday... replacing a disk online is not really possible. Handling a failing drive is not really implemented.<p>Don&#x27;t call it stable or don&#x27;t call it RAID. It&#x27;s nice that I&#x27;m able to pull of the data of my ro-mounted degraded array when a disk fails.. however all of this stuff is not really documented and was very surprising to me. If you have production machine e.g. on btrfs RAID10 it sucks to not be able to replace a broken drive on the fly online.<p>ZFS&#x2F;mdraid just do it..<p>[RAID II]<p>&gt; * 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>&gt; 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>Walking is a less than than optimal way to move from Moscow to Berlin. If I take a train I expect a train - btrfs is a train that occasionally stops and says: Well, just walk... okay, you see I&#x27;m kind of emotional invested in this shit. However it&#x27;s not what&#x27;s usually expected as RAID and it&#x27;s not documented.<p>We have here a lot of applications that do exactly that: a single PID reads lots of stuff very often sequentially... so RAID1 doubles throughput. Well not on btrfs.<p>[ENOSPC]<p>&gt; I don&#x27;t run into those, and haven&#x27;t for literal years.<p>4x4TB RAID10 (90% free) -&gt; ENOSPC - this was somehwere between 3.16 or 3.19 - how can this even happen?<p>[Corruption]<p>&gt; I haven&#x27;t run into any, ever on the handful of systems on which I use BTRFS.<p>Good for you. 
Was hit by this nasty undeletable directory bug:  <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spinics.net&#x2F;lists&#x2F;linux-btrfs&#x2F;msg35789.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spinics.net&#x2F;lists&#x2F;linux-btrfs&#x2F;msg35789.html</a><p>And then this: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spinics.net&#x2F;lists&#x2F;linux-btrfs&#x2F;msg45108.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spinics.net&#x2F;lists&#x2F;linux-btrfs&#x2F;msg45108.html</a><p>Umounting and running btrfs --check repair is not really cool if you want some uptime...<p>[Deadlocks]<p>Currently btrfs deadlocks reliable in a OOM situation... 
With 4.2 things got better, before running some medium heavy Hadoop job or ElastichSearch indexing killed 20% to 50% of the machines due to deadlocks (with 3.19 IIRC)<p>&gt; Look. I&#x27;m not saying that btrfs is feature-complete, suitable for every workload, or that any given person should use it for their workload. I&#x27;m just saying that the situation is far less dire than you&#x27;re making it out to be. I&#x27;ve been using it as the rootfs for at least one of my daily use systems for the past 5.5 years, and haven&#x27;t had any trouble out of it [3] in the past 2+ years.<p>It&#x27;s probably fine for personal use. But don&#x27;t think about using it for something that is demanding. You can google the presentations that say: Use it! It&#x27;s stable! Enterprise! It&#x27;s not.<p>Maybe in 5 years. I just saw it breaking in too many strange ways to bother anymore with it.