On Mon, Mar 12, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote: > On 3/12/18, Leonid Isaev via arch-general <email@example.com> wrote: > What's wrong with btrfs? Yeah, I know it is not marked "stable", but this > is just a label. And people shying away from it doesn't help in advancing > its stability either.
It might be good for experimentation and possibly a desktop, but if you're actually storing a lot of files, you probably want a filesystem marked as stable. The fact that it is not marked stable implies the developers still think there is some sort of insufficiency. ZFS is known to be a world-class filesystem and could probably be considered one of the most system agnostic file systems now considering it is available on FreeBSD, Solaris, most Linux distributions, and even Windows and macOS. While the macOS and Windows ports are probably not at a point where they are suitable for widespread use - since they are still fairly new - you could at least mount a pool on those systems and read your data, the same can't be said for btrfs. For anyone not happy with dkms, the archzfs repo  offers great support for ZFS in binary form, and I've been using it for a few years now with no problems.  https://github.com/archzfs/archzfs -- John Ramsden