Kent, please, make sure you dealt with problems specific to another fs: btrfs: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linuxs-perpetually-half-finished-filesystem/ . In particular, I dislike this btrfs problems, mentioned in the article: - "Yes, you read that correctly—you mount the array using the name of any given disk in the array. No, it doesn't matter which one" - "Even though our array is technically "redundant," it refuses to mount with /dev/vdc missing... In the worst-case scenario—a root filesystem that itself is stored "redundantly" on btrfs-raid1 or btrfs-raid10—the entire system refuses to boot... If you're thinking, "Well, the obvious step here is just to always mount degraded," the btrfs devs would like to have a word with you... If you lose a drive from a conventional RAID array, or an mdraid array, or a ZFS zpool, that array keeps on trucking without needing any special flags to mount it. If you then add the failed drive back to the array, your RAID manager will similarly automatically begin "resilvering" or "rebuilding" the array... That, unfortunately, is not the case with btrfs-native RAID" I suggest reading the article in full, at least from section "Btrfs RAID array management is a mess" till the end. Please, ensure that bcachefs has no these problems! These problems scary me away from btrfs. Please, CC me when answering -- Askar Safin
