Did you include BTRFS in here just to mentioned all weak points of BTRFS and act like they also true for ZFS? Because that's not true at all. > Maybe because i

Did you include BTRFS in here just to mentioned all weak points of BTRFS and act like they also true for ZFS? Because that's not true at all. > Maybe because in a virtualised environment, you loose many of the benefits of ZFS or BTRFS (they like to see the raw disk, not some abstract notation). ZVOL exist...You can snapshot, close, send/recv it just like dataset. You can fine-tune it like any other dataset. ZVOL works just fine for VMs. > Maybe because ZFS and BTRFS still have their bugs, small and big (hello RAID5 in BTRFS ;-) ) and can be heavily dependent on particular implementations. Everything has bugs. Again, you put BTRFS here just to drive your point like if it's try BTRFS then it's true for ZFS? > Maybe because BTRFS needs babysitting[1] (don't know about ZFS, I suspect it might). Same as above. > Maybe because the combination of XFS/ext4 plus LVM is more than good enough for most people as that route still provides snapshots etc. Very different kind of snapshots... I've been using ZFS on my desktop and laptops for over a decade now. You gotta make really kick-ass FS for me to switch off ZFS even for desktop.