I agree with what you say, and I would never trust btrfs with my data because of issues that I've seen in the past, My last job I installed my Ubuntu desktop wi

I agree with what you say, and I would never trust btrfs with my data because of issues that I've seen in the past, My last job I installed my Ubuntu desktop with btrfs and within three days it had been corrupted so badly because of a power outage that I had to completely wipe and reinstall the system. That said: > but cause the filesystem to panic with error messages for which there is no documentation and little clue what the problem is. The one and only time I experimented with ZFS as a root filesystem I got bit in the ass because the zfs tools one day added a new feature flag to the filesystem that the boot loader (grub) didn't understand and therefore it refused to read the filesystem, even read-only. Real kick in the teeth, that one, especially since the feature flag was completely irrelevant to just reading enough of the filesystem for the boot loader to load the kernel and there was no way to override it without patching grub's zfs module on another system then porting it over. Aside from that, ZFS has been fantastic, and now that we're all using UEFI and our kernels and initrds are on FAT32 filesystems I'm much less worried, but I'm still a bit gunshy. Not as much as with BTRFS, mind you, but somewhat.