Respectfully to the maintainers:

How can this be a stable filesystem if parity is unstable and risks data loss?

How has this been allowed to happen?

It just seems so profoundly unserious to me.

Does the whole filesystem need to be marked as unstable if it has a single experimental feature? Is any other filesystem held to that standard?

▲

AaronFriel 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Parity support in multi-disk arrays is older than I am, it's a fairly standard feature. btrfs doesn't support this without data loss risks after 17 years of development.

▲

wtallis 4 days ago | parent [-]

If you're not interested in a multi-disk storage system that doesn't have (stable, non-experimental) parity modes, that's a valid personal preference but not at all a justification for the position that the rest of the features cannot be stable and that the project as a whole cannot be taken seriously by anyone.

	▲	AaronFriel 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Is that what I said?

▲

nextaccountic 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe this specific feature should be marked as unstable and default to disabled on most kernel builds unless you add something like btrfs.experimental=1 to the kernel line or something