> This seems REALLY bad for reliability? I guess the idea is that it's better to have things not respond to requests than to lose data, but the outcome described in the article is pretty nasty.

It is. Because if it really starts to crap out above 100ms just a small hiccup in network attached storage of VM it is running on cam

but it's not as simple as that, if you have multiple nodes, and one starts to lag, kicking it out is only way to keep the latency manageable.

Better solution would be to keep cluster-wide disk latency average and only kick node that is slow and much slower than other nodes; that would also auto tune to slow setups like someone running it on some spare hdds at homelab