> One last point of architectural difference is this — XFS has B+ tree implementation for searching files and allocating space. This makes searching and fetchin

> One last point of architectural difference is this — XFS has B+ tree implementation for searching files and allocating space. This makes searching and fetching the data much faster. OpenZFS has no such feature. I wish I could downvote this article, just for this one point alone. I wonder what kind of benchmarking the author did to come to the conclusion of "searching and fetching the data much faster" and how much the B+ tree of xfs contributed to it. Speed depends on a lot of factors (copy on write, compression, journaling, crash recovery, etc.) and I wonder how the author narrowed it down to the B+ tree of XFS. Also, there could be variants of various B family trees even within a same filesystem. So I am not really sure, what the author means by "XFS has B+ tree implementation". If you are a RedHat shop and deploy linux extensively already, then xfs may be a better option, if you are not looking for most zfs features like volume management, etc. Also, installation, support etc. would be much easier. This article is shallow in many ways technically, but arrives at conclusions strongly. It just seems like a paid article to promote zfs. May be an article on LWN would be more meaningful and technically competent to make a comparison than this.