used it for an Hadoop cluster after I've read an interview with the author that it's ready for production and Suse talking that it's the premier filesystem for their enterprise distribution. At that time ZFS was at 0.6.x and the new ARC stuff was not there and no dkms for Ubuntu and I was afraid that nobody could handle that... A few month later I'm obsessed with reading any commit in master and the mailing list, because things like undeletable files, hard lockups of the whole cluster and manual reboots in rescue-image and running btrfsck and stuff like that started to took too much time. That beeing said no problems after 4.8 or so, besides out of space on 20gb used with lots of files in a 16tb raid-10 btrfs array but that was minor in comparision to the other problems...

Might be unfair, but I've learned my lesson there. I decided to follow the spectactle from a large distance.

Those who have used it have many battle scars that lead to us never ever trusting it again.

Apparently because quite a few people have had bad experiences with it? When filesystems go bad, they really go bad, so it makes sense that these users would feel motivated to share their experiences.

Perhaps it's a vocal minority, but does it matter? Isn't the error rate what's most important? I've seen ZFS horror stories too, but not nearly as many, and that says something at least.

Disclaimer: I've never used btrfs. I quite like ZFS.