alt Hacker News> This is not a bug report. [...] The goal is constructive, not a complaint.
Er, I appreciate trying to be constructive, but in what possible situation is it not a bug that a power cycle can lose the pool? And if it's not technically a "bug" because BTRFS officially specifies that it can fail like that, why is that not in big bold text at the start of any docs on it? 'Cuz that's kind of a big deal for users to know.
EDIT: From the longer write-up:
> Initial damage. A hard power cycle interrupted a commit at generation 18958 to 18959. Both DUP copies of several metadata blocks were written with inconsistent parent and child generations.
Did the author disable safety mechanisms for that to happen? I'm coming from being more familiar with ZFS, but I would have expected BTRFS to also use a CoW model where it wasn't possible to have multiple inconsistent metadata blocks in a way that didn't just revert you to the last fully-good commit. If it does that by default but there's a way to disable that protection in the name of improving performance, that would significantly change my view of this whole thing.
As far as I can see, no, the author disabled nothing of the sort that he documented.
I suspect that the author's intent is less "I do not view this as a bug" and more "I do not think it's useful to get into angry debates over whether something is a bug". I do not know whether this is a common thing on btrfs discussions, but I have certainly seen debates to that effect elsewhere.
(My personal favorite remains "it's not a data loss bug if someone could technically theoretically write something to recover the data". Perhaps, technically, that's true, but if nobody is writing such a tool, nobody is going to care about the semantics there.)