> zfs is way simpler to manage than btrfs Not sure I agree. On ZFS I have to worry about an out of tree kernel module and all the implications of that, extra t

> zfs is way simpler to manage than btrfs Not sure I agree. On ZFS I have to worry about an out of tree kernel module and all the implications of that, extra things like setting the correct ashift, making sure the recordsize is tuned individually in datasets to not destroy performance for specific worksets, ensuring ARC doesn't cause OOM behavior with applications which allocate a lot of memory at once (since it doesn't use the page cache), etc etc. With BTRFS however off the top of my head the only thing I remember doing was making sure nodatacow was set for subvolumes containing databases and VM disks. You are absolutely correct about the ZFS ecosystem containing superior tooling however.