I don't have specifics for how many people running a fork of ZFS on Linux (or the fork for opensolaris, nexenta, etc) have copy-pasted some configuration from a wiki/forum/stackexchange and resulted in a pool that's misconfigured in some subtly fatal way. I don't have any personal anecdotes to share about my own homelab or enterprise IT experience with ZFS because I don't use it at home and nowhere I've worked in IT has used it.

I did live specific situations over several years in a support engineer role where a double digit percentage of customers in enterprise configurations that ended up somewhere between terrible performance and catastrophic data loss due to the misunderstood configuration of a very complex piece of software.

If you wanna use ZFS, use ZFS. I'm not the internets crusader against it. I have no doubt there's thousands of PB out there of perfectly happy, well configured and healthy zpools. It has some truely next-gen features that are extremely useful. I've just seen it recommended so, so many times as a panacea when something simpler would be just as safe and long lasting.

It's kinda like using Kubernetes to run a few containers. Right?

> I don't have specifics (...). I don't have any personal anecdotes (...).

I see.

> I did live specific situations over several years in a support engineer role where a double digit percentage of customers in enterprise configurations that ended up somewhere between terrible performance and catastrophic data loss due to the misunderstood configuration of a very complex piece of software.

I'm sorry, but this claim is outright unbelievable. If the project was even half as unstable as you claim to be, no one would ever use it in production at all. Either you are leaving out critical details such as non-standard patches and usages that have no relationship with real world usage, or you are fabricating tales.

Also, it's telling that no one stepped forward to offer any concrete details and specifics on these hypothetical issues. Makes you think.