I mean, losing data is an extremely complex problem. What I'll say is that I've run large production systems with heavy load on ext2 and ext4 and did not find that it "lost data" more frequently than xfs, and in fact performed fine.
What's really important here is the person who closed the bug did some summarily, with little to no explanation, other than a reference to O_DIRECT not being supported in ext4, and therefore it "loses data" in production. This is an unprofessional comment to close a bug and I'd expect one of the co-founders of MinIO to do a better job. See https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Clarifying_Direct_IO%... for a discussion of the subletly of O_DIRECT. It's also not really required to make a production filesystem reliable, and would only be a tiny part of an overall reliability solution (because drives themselves often buffer and reorder their writes, sometimes even lying about whether data was "commited durably to disk")
What's really important here is the person who closed the bug did some summarily, with little to no explanation, other than a reference to O_DIRECT not being supported in ext4, and therefore it "loses data" in production. This is an unprofessional comment to close a bug and I'd expect one of the co-founders of MinIO to do a better job. See https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Clarifying_Direct_IO%... for a discussion of the subletly of O_DIRECT. It's also not really required to make a production filesystem reliable, and would only be a tiny part of an overall reliability solution (because drives themselves often buffer and reorder their writes, sometimes even lying about whether data was "commited durably to disk")