Admittedly ZFS takes on a lot more in managing files than traditional file systems, but it didn't fair too well in speed tests.  All tolled, I would still rather have a slower file system with multiple layers of data protection and redundancy like ZFS.  The fact that it is now possible natively in the Linux kernel is pretty cool, imo.

 

Article

Yes, very interesting article. I see a good future for Btrfs.

Resier4 comparison

 

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=reiser4_benchmarks&num=1

too much talk of benchmarks... the data integrity and flexibility is what is important!

 

AMEN to flexibility. Being able to pull a disk from the array and still use it was the final selling point for me on unRAID.

Well it was nice to see ZFS native in the kernel made significant gains versus the FUSE port.

Agreed! Knowing that if unRAID were no more or if I decided to free-willingly to migrate off from unRAID (I can't see any reason why), being able to boot my unRAID server using most live-based Linux distro's, mounting the disks and copy the files off from the server to a new destination was one of the main deal makers, plus the data integrity that unRAID uses is pretty reliable as well.

Try losing multiple disks in other RAID configurations and you've lost everything, where as unRAID, you're only losing the damaged data disks, so something is better than nothing. For the corporates, using a ZFS FS would be the way the go for speed sake, but for home use, it wouldn't be such an important factor (In my opinion).

The ZFS is fairly new, has some overhead to use it, though has had lots of attention and will get better in time, whereas ReiserFS is a 'tried-and-true' FS, very stable, little overhead, there is lots of KB's about how to get it to it's full potential, lots of Linux OS's nativity support it too and is easy to recover data from.

 

AMEN to flexibility. Being able to pull a disk from the array and still use it was the final selling point for me on unRAID.