> it doesn't really make sense at all that 'btrfs developers say it's not ready'. This just doesn't square. Just looked at this page: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel

> it doesn't really make sense at all that 'btrfs developers say it's not ready'. This just doesn't square. Just looked at this page: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status and I can see how they would interpret that as "not ready". There a good number of "mostly OK" ones, one is unstable. With comments like "write hole still exists, parity not checksummed", "auto-repair and compression may crash ", and others. It might be good enough for some but I can see many customers of Redhat would not want to trust their crown jewels to anything that stays "mostly OK".