Ubuntu ships ZFS with their kernels. While this isn't an explicit thing, it strongly implies that Canonical doesn't have full confidence in btrfs.
As others have stated, Red Hat explicitly pulled engineering resources off btrfs.
ZFS just blows btrfs out of the water, there is really no comparison. As painful as it is to say, after all these years, btrfs still really feels like a rough draft of a modern filesystem.
That's no insult to the people who've done amazing work on btrfs over the years, it's just calling a spade a spade. Something was just missing in its development; maybe it was vision, cohesion, whatever it was at an organizational level, something stopped btrfs from really coming together as a first-class enterprise-ready FS. We should recognize that and let it go, as Canonical and Red Hat have gradually been doing.
If the choice is between memory contention and all of the issues that come with btrfs, I think memory contention is the better option.
That said, if the only issue is that ZFS's memory profile is too heavy for personal systems, that seems like something that justifies some tweaks to ZFS, possibly a "home use" operational mode, rather than a completely new FS, am I right?
I'm using ZFS without incident, but my workstation has 64G, so not really a good example...
Not to belittle the effort of the authors of this project, but when it's so easy to spin up a VM and feed the device through to it, it almost feels like we're past the point of needing native drivers for foreign filesystems. btrfs will surely work much better on a virtualized Linux kernel than through a buggy reimplementation of such a complex FS in Windows' driver platform.
As others have stated, Red Hat explicitly pulled engineering resources off btrfs.
ZFS just blows btrfs out of the water, there is really no comparison. As painful as it is to say, after all these years, btrfs still really feels like a rough draft of a modern filesystem.
That's no insult to the people who've done amazing work on btrfs over the years, it's just calling a spade a spade. Something was just missing in its development; maybe it was vision, cohesion, whatever it was at an organizational level, something stopped btrfs from really coming together as a first-class enterprise-ready FS. We should recognize that and let it go, as Canonical and Red Hat have gradually been doing.