<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mattbee</author><text>We have deployed ZFS for the last few years on some large backup servers (Solaris and FreeBSD) and our experience has been pretty rotten - the command line is slow at managing a few hundred volumes, it becomes unusable during a rebuild, and it has / had a rotten bug where if you fill a volume up to 100%, you need to allocate more space before you can delete it.&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s been a multi-year mistake for us and we&apos;re busy changing these servers back to nice simple XFS volumes.</text><parent_chain><item><author>kev009</author><text>Btrfs is actually a sordid state of affairs.  It&apos;s been &quot;two years out&quot; for five years, which seems very disingenuous looking back.  Groundbreaking FS development follows a pretty regular formula.  10 years seems to be the magic number.  Major functionality (i.e RAID 5) is still just landing and has glaring issues.  It&apos;s just now a couple years out.&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, ZFS has over 10 years of history, stably implements most of Btrfs _planned_ features, and has battle tested deployments.  Granted, the SPL for Linux adds variables, but there are some big users of this particular project.&lt;p&gt;So I approach Btrfs with the exact opposite mindset.  It&apos;s guilty until innocent despite some FUD from the Linux camp early on that has settled down a bit since Oracle now has it&apos;s hands on both.</text></item><item><author>dkhenry</author><text>So the two things I don&apos;t see are a comparison with BTRFS in terms of speed, and stability. I know ZFS is cool, but while we were waiting for it BTRFS got pretty darn good. I know ZFS has some additional features that BRTFS doesn&apos;t have, but If I have to use a unstable or slow filesystem to get those features when I could use by perfectly stable and fast filesystem while I wait for a few nice features I am going to say ZFS has missed its oppertuinity</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>ZFS on Linux 0.6.1 released: Ready for wide scale deployment</title><url>https://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/zfs-announce/ZXADhyOwFfA</url><text></text></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>dkhenry</author><text>This is why people think BTRFS isn&apos;t any good, because someone waltses up and says yeah well it doens&apos;t have XXX feature which only _one_ other filesystem has so its clearly lacking and immature. The truth it it works great its sufficently fast and has been stable for years. Yes it doesn&apos;t have Raid5 or Raid Z if you would like and I can&apos;t import and export pools the way I can in ZFS, but honestly if you jumping on a FS that has been marked stable for all of two days on Linux and your reasoning is you can&apos;t do software raid on the other one then best of luck to you.</text><parent_chain><item><author>kev009</author><text>Btrfs is actually a sordid state of affairs.  It&apos;s been &quot;two years out&quot; for five years, which seems very disingenuous looking back.  Groundbreaking FS development follows a pretty regular formula.  10 years seems to be the magic number.  Major functionality (i.e RAID 5) is still just landing and has glaring issues.  It&apos;s just now a couple years out.&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, ZFS has over 10 years of history, stably implements most of Btrfs _planned_ features, and has battle tested deployments.  Granted, the SPL for Linux adds variables, but there are some big users of this particular project.&lt;p&gt;So I approach Btrfs with the exact opposite mindset.  It&apos;s guilty until innocent despite some FUD from the Linux camp early on that has settled down a bit since Oracle now has it&apos;s hands on both.</text></item><item><author>dkhenry</author><text>So the two things I don&apos;t see are a comparison with BTRFS in terms of speed, and stability. I know ZFS is cool, but while we were waiting for it BTRFS got pretty darn good. I know ZFS has some additional features that BRTFS doesn&apos;t have, but If I have to use a unstable or slow filesystem to get those features when I could use by perfectly stable and fast filesystem while I wait for a few nice features I am going to say ZFS has missed its oppertuinity</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>ZFS on Linux 0.6.1 released: Ready for wide scale deployment</title><url>https://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/zfs-announce/ZXADhyOwFfA</url><text></text></story>