Just because you and I are using different meanings of the word "care" doesn't mean the point isn't valid. They "care" in that they would like to know what went wrong and study it further. They don't "care" in the sense that they suffered no real harm and no stakes were riding on any one particular server that failed. It's not just a matter of having a backup/redundancy, it's about having automated systems (or even just standard procedures that are being executed on a daily basis at that scale one way or the other) that take care of these failures. So even in production, "regular" btrfs users might have backups so "no lasting damage" would be incurred, but that's hardly the same as openly volunteering themselves for risk.

That's all besides the main point: Facebook is deploying "known good" configurations. They're using a very select subset of features. They're not trusting changed btrfs features/implementations being correct or, as was my experience, worrying about less-used/tested codepaths leading to data loss.

“Also keep in mind we pay really close attention to burn rates for our drives, because obviously at our scale it translates to millions of dollars. Btrfs has improved our burn rates with the compression, as the write amplification goes drastically down, thus extending the life of the drives.”

As with anything it comes down to money. Yes a machine going down doesn’t impact the cluster but it does impact their wallet. Every failure of a disk costs money and on the scale of the big boys that can add up to big money.

So while “the system” doesn’t care about drive failures the accountants and CFO’s absolutely care.