After years in the making ZFS raidz expansaion is finally here.
Major features added in release:
- RAIDZ Expansion: Add new devices to an existing RAIDZ pool, increasing storage capacity without downtime.
- Fast Dedup: A major performance upgrade to the original OpenZFS deduplication functionality.
- Direct IO: Allows bypassing the ARC for reads/writes, improving performance in scenarios like NVMe devices where caching may hinder efficiency.
- JSON: Optional JSON output for the most used commands.
- Long names: Support for file and directory names up to 1023 characters.
Direct IO useful for databases and other applications that use their own disk caching layer. Without knowing what you run in Proxmox no one will be able to tell you if it's beneficial or not.
It works by making a readonly copy of the vdev being removed inside the remaining space. The existing vdev is then removed. Data can still be accessed from the copy, but new writes will go to an actual vdev while data no longer needed on the copy is gradually reclaimed as free space as the old data is no longer needed.
How well tested is this in combination with encryption?
Is the ZFS team handling encryption as a first class priority at all?
ZFS on Linux inherited a lot of fame from ZFS on Solaris, but everyone using it in production should study the issue tracker very well for a realistic impression of the situation.
Main issue with encryption is occasional attempts by certain (specific) Linux kernel developer to lockout ZFS out of access to advanced instruction set extensions (far from the only weird idea of that specific developer).
The way ZFS encryption is layered, the features should be pretty much orthogonal from each other, but I'll admit that there's a bit of lacking with ZFS native encryption (though mainly in upper layer tooling in my experience rather than actual on-disk encryption parts)
The new features should interact fine with encryption. They are implemented at different parts of ZFS' internal stack.
There have been many man hours put into investigating bug reports involving encryption and some fixes were made. Unfortunately, something appears to be going wrong when non-raw sends of encrypted datasets are received by another system:
I do not believe anyone has figured out what is going wrong there. It has not been for lack of trying. Raw sends from encrypted datasets appear to be fine.
I just don't get it how the Windows world - by far the largest PC platform per userbase - still doesn't have any answer to ZFS. Microsoft had WinFS and then ReFS but it's on the backburner and while there is active development (Win11 ships some bits time to time) release is nowhere in sight. There are some lone warriors trying the giant task of creating a ZFS compatibility layer with some projects, but they are far from being mature/usable.
How come that Windows still uses a 32 year old file system?
To be honest, the situation with Linux is barely better.
ZFS has license issues with Linux, preventing full integration, and Btrfs is 15 years in the making and still doesn't match ZFS in features and stability.
Most Linux distros still use ext4 by default, which is 19 years old, but ext4 is little more than a series of extensions on top of ext2, which is the same age as NTFS.
In all fairness, there are few OS components that are as critical as the filesystem, and many wouldn't touch filesystems that have less than a decade of proven track record in production.
ZFS might be better then any other FS on Linux (I don't judge that).
But you must admit that the situation on Linux is quite better then on Windows. Linux has so many FS in main branch. There is a lot of development. BTRFS had a rocky start, but it got better.
I’m interested to know what ‘full integration’ does look like, I use ZFS in Proxmox (Debian-based) and it’s really great and super solid, but I haven’t used ZFS in more vanilla Linux distros. Does Proxmox have things that regular Linux is missing out on, or are there shortcomings and things I just don’t realise about Proxmox?
> Btrfs [...] still doesn't match ZFS in features [...]
Isn't the feature in question (array expansion) precisely one which btrfs already had for a long time? Does ZFS have the opposite feature (shrinking the array), which AFAIK btrfs also already had for a long time?
(And there's one feature which is important to many, "being in the upstream Linux kernel", that ZFS most likely will never have.)
> Most Linux distros still use ext4 by default, which is 19 years old, but ext4 is little more than a series of extensions on top of ext2, which is the same age as NTFS.
However, ext4 and XFS are much more simpler and performant than BTRFS & ZFS as root drives on personal systems and small servers.
I personally won't use either on a single disk system as root FS, regardless of how fast my storage subsystem is.
ZFS runs on all major Linux distros, the source is compiled locally and there is no meaningful license problem. In datacenter and "enterprise" environments we compile ZFS "statically" with other kernel modules all the time.
For over six years now, there is an "experimental" option presented by the graphical Ubuntu installer to install the root filesystem on ZFS. Almost everyone I personally know (just my anecdote) chooses this "experimental" option. There has been an occasion here and there of ZFS snapshots taking up too much space, but other than this there have not been any problems.
I statically compile ZFS into a kernel that intentionally does not support loading modules on some of my personal laptops. My experience has been great, others' mileage may (certainly will) vary.
> How come that Windows still uses a 32 year old file system?
Simple. Because most of the burden is taken by the (enterprise) storage hardware hosting the FS. Snapshots, block level deduplication, object storage technologies, RAID/Resiliency, size changes, you name it.
Modern storage appliances are black magic, and you don't need much more features from NTFS. You either transparently access via NAS/SAN or store your NTFS volumes on capable disk boxes.
On the Linux world, at the higher end, there's Lustre and GPFS. ZFS is mostly for resilient, but not performance critical needs.
> I just don't get it how the Windows world - by far the largest PC platform per userbase - still doesn't have any answer to ZFS.
The mainline Linux kernel doesn't either, and I think the answer is because it's hard and high risk with a return mostly measured in technical respect?
Way better data security, resilience against file rotting. This goes for both HDDs or SSDs. Copy-on-write, snapshots, end to end integrity. Also easier to extend the storage for safety/drive failure (and SSDs corrupt in a more sneaky way) with pools.
For a while I ran Open Solaris with ZFS as root filesystem.
The key feature for me, which I miss, is the snapshotting integrated into the package manager.
ZFS allows snapshots more or less for free (due to copy on weite) including cron based snapshotting every 15 minutes. So if I did a mistake anywhere there was a way to recover.
And that integrated with the update manager and boot manager means that on an update a snapshot is created and during boot one can switch between states. Never had a broken update, but gave a good feeling.
On my home server I like the raid features and on Solaris it was nicely integrated with NFS etc so that one can easily create volumes and export them and set restrictions (max size etc.) on it.
Much faster launch of applications/files you use regularly.
Ability to always rollback updates in seconds if they cause issues thanks to snapshots.
Fast backups with snapshots + zfs send/receive to a remote machine.
Compressed disks, this both let's you store more on a drive and makes accessing files faster.
Easy encryption.
ability to mirror 2 large usb disks so you never have your data corrupted or lose it from drive failures.
Can move your data or entire os install to a new computer easily by using a live disk and just doing a send/receive to the new pc.
(I have never used dedup, but it's there if you want I guess)
Snapshots (Note: NTFS does have this in the way of Volume Shadow Copy but it's not as easily accessible as a feature to the end user as it is in ZFS). Copy on Write for reliability under crashes. Block checksumming for data protection (bitrot)
OpenZFS on Windows has reached release candidate state (rc11) with some remaining bugs around volume mount (nothing serious, avoid encryption atm). Development is very fast (a new rc every few weeks to fix remaining problems)
Paired with Storage Spaces to pool disks of any type or size with location, redundancy or tiering defined per Space, Windows is now a premium storage platform.
With a Windows Server ex a cheap 2022/2025 Essentials you additionally can use SMB Direct/RDMA with a performance up to 10 Gbyte/s over lan and virtual harddisks .vhdx as a zero config and faster alternative to iSCSI.
This is why I have ported me ZFS web-gui napp-it cs from Solaris to Windows to manage Storage Spaces and ZFS and remotely OpenZFS servers like Proxmox (free for noncommercial use)
NTFS was able to be extended in various way over the years to the point what you could do with an NTFS drive 32 years ago will feel like talking about a completely different filesystem than what you can do with it on current Windows.
Honestly I really like ReFS, particularly in context of storage spaces, but I don't think it's relevant to Microsoft's consumer desktop OS where users don't have 6 drives they need to pool together. Don't get me wrong, I use ZFS because that's what I can get running on a Linux server and I'm not going to go run Windows Server just for the storage pooling... but ReFS + Storage Spaces wins my heart with the 256 MB slab approach. This means you can add+remove mixed sized drives and get the maximum space utilization for the parity settings of the pool. Here ZFS is still getting to online adds of same or larger drives 10 years later.
OS development pretty much stopped around 2000. ZFS is from 2001. I don't count a new way to organise my photos or integrate with a search engine as "OS" though.
The benefits of ZFS don't need multiple drives to be useful. I'm running ZFS on root for years now and snapshots have saved my bacon several times. Also with block checksums you can at least detect bitrot. And COW is always useful.
It's good to see that they were pretty conservative about the expansion.
Not only is expansion completely transparent and resumable, it also maintains redundancy throughout the process.
That said, there is one tiny caveat people should be aware of:
> After the expansion completes, old blocks remain with their old data-to-parity ratio (e.g. 5-wide RAIDZ2, has 3 data to 2 parity), but distributed among the larger set of disks. New blocks will be written with the new data-to-parity
ratio (e.g. a 5-wide RAIDZ2 which has been expanded once to 6-wide, has 4 data to 2 parity).
I'm not sure that's really a caveat, it just means old data might be in an inoptimal layout. Even with that, you still get the full benefits of raidzN, where up to N disks can completely fail and the pool will remain functional.
I think it's a huge caveat, because it makes upgrades a lot less efficient than you'd expect.
For example, home users generally don't want to buy all of their storage up front. They want to add additional disks as the array fills up. Being able to start with a 2-disk raidz1 and later upgrade that to a 3-disk and eventually 4-disk array is amazing. It's a lot less amazing if you end up with a 55% storage efficiency rather than 66% you'd ideally get from a 2-disk to 3-disk upgrade. That's 11% of your total disk capacity wasted, without any benefit whatsoever.
Where the Dd1-3 blocks are just wasted. Meaning by adding a new disk to the array you're only expanding free storage by 25%... So say you have 8TB disks for a total of 24TB of storage free originally, and you have 4TB free before expansion, you would have 5TB free after expansion.
Please tell me I've misunderstood this, because to me it is a pretty useless implementation if I haven't.
ZFS RAID-Z does not have parity disks. The parity and data is interleaved to allow data reads to be done from all disks rather than just the data disks.
Anyway, you are not entirely wrong. The old data will have the old parity:data ratio while new data will have the new parity:data ratio. As old data is freed from the vdev, new writes will use the new parity:data ratio. You can speed this up by doing send/receive, or by deleting all snapshots and then rewriting the files in place. This has the caveat that reflinks will not survive the operation, such that if you used reflinks to deduplicate storage, you will find the deduplication effect is gone afterward.
Unless I misunderstood you, you're describing more how classical RAID would work. The RAID-Z expansion works like you note you would logically expect. You added a drive with four blocks of free space, and you end up with four blocks more of free space afterwards.
You can see this in the presentation[1] slides[2].
The reason this is sub-optimal post-expansion is because, in your example, the old maximal stripe width is lower than the post-expansion maximal stripe width.
Your example is a bit unfortunate in terms of allocated blocks vs layout, but if we tweak it slightly, then
This is huge news for ZFS users (probably mostly those in the hobbyist/home use space, but still). raidz expansion has been one of the most requested features for years.
I'm not yet familiar with zfs and couldn't find it in the release note: Does expansion only works with disk of the same size? Or is adding are bigger/smaller disks possible or do all disk need to have the same size?
You can use different sized disks, but RAID-Z will truncate the space it uses to the lowest common denominator. If you increase the lowest common denominator, RAID-Z should auto-expand to use the additional space. All parity RAID technologies truncate members to the lowest common denominator, rather than just ZFS.
As far as I understand, ZFS doesn't work at all with disks of differing sizes (in the same array). So if you try it, it just finds the size of the smallest disk, and uses that for all disks. So if you put an 8TB drive in an array with a bunch of 10TB drives, they'll all be treated as 8TB drives, and the extra 2TB will be ignored on those disks.
However, if you replace the smallest disk with a new, larger drive, and resilver, then it'll now use the new smallest disk as the baseline, and use that extra space on the other drives.
Note: This is online expansion. Expansion was always possible but you did need to take the array down to do it. You could also move to bigger drives but you also had to do that one at a time (and only gain the new capacity once all drives were upgraded of course)
As far as I know shrinking a pool is still not possible though. So if you have a pool with 5 drives and add a 6th, you can't go back to 5 drives even if there is very little data in it.
You can do borderline insane single-vdev setups like RAID-Z3 with 4 disks (3 Disks worth of redundancy) of the most expensive and highest density hard drives money can buy right now, for an initial effective space usage of 25% and then keep buying and expanding Disk by Disk, with the space demand growing, up to something like 12ish disks. Disk prices dropping as time goes on and a spread out failure chance with disks being added at different times.
When you expand your array, your existing data will not be stored any more efficiently.
To get the new parity/data ratios, you would have to force copies of the data and delete the old, inefficient versions, e.g. with something like this [1]
My personal take is that it's a much better idea to buy individual complete raid-z configurations and add new ones / replace old ones (disk by disk!) as you go.
How does ZFS compare to btrfs? I'm currently using btrfs for my home server, but I've had some strange troubles with it. I'm thinking about switching to ZFS, but I don't want to end up in the same situation.
I first tried btrfs 15 years ago with Linux 2.6.33-rc4 if I recall. It developed an unlinkable file within 3 days, so I stopped using it. Later, I found ZFS. It had a few less significant problems, but I was a CS student at the time and I thought I could fix them since they seemed minor in comparison to the issue I had with btrfs, so over the next 18 months, I solved all of the problems that it had that bothered me and sent the patches to be included in the then ZFSOnLinux repository. My effort helped make it production ready on Linux. I have used ZFS ever since and it has worked well for me.
If btrfs had been in better shape, I would have been a btrfs contributor. Unfortunately for btrfs, it not only was in bad shape back then, but other btrfs issues continued to bite me every time I tried it over the years for anything serious (e.g. frequent ENOSPC errors when there is still space). ZFS on the other hand just works. Myself and many others did a great deal of work to ensure it works well.
The main reason for the difference is that ZFS had a very solid foundation, which was achieved by having some fantastic regression testing facilities. It has a userland version that randomly exercises the code to find bugs before they occur in production and a test suite that is run on every proposed change to help shake out bugs.
ZFS also has more people reviewing proposed changes than other filesystems. The Btrfs developers will often state that there is a significant man power difference between the two file systems. I vaguely recall them claiming the difference was a factor of 6.
Anyway, few people who use ZFS regret it, so I think you will find you like it too.
btrfs has similar aims to ZFS, but is far less mature. i used it for my root partitions due to it not needing DKMS, but had many troubles. i used it in a fairly simple way, just a mirror. one day, of the drives in the array started to have issues- and btrfs fell on it's face. it remounted everything read-only if i remember correctly, and would not run in degraded mode by default. even mdraid would do better than this without checksumming and so forth. ZFS also likewise, says that the array is faulted, but of course allows it to be used. the fact the default behavior was not RAID, because it's literally missing the R part for reading the data back, made me lose any faith in it. i moved to ZFS and haven't had issues since. there is much more of a community and lots of good tooling around it.
I used Btrfs for a few years but switched away a couple years ago. I also had one or two incidents with Btrfs where some weirdness happened, but I was able to recover everything in the end. Overall I liked the flexibility of Btrfs, but mostly I found it too slow.
I use ZFS on Arch Linux and overall have had no problems with it so far. There's more customization and methods to optimize performance. My one suggestion is to do a lot of research and testing with ZFS. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it's been worth the switch for me.
Happy to see the ARC bypass for NVMe performance. ZFS really fails to exploit NVMe's potential. Online expansion might be interesting. I tried to use ZFS for some very busy databases and ended up getting bitten badly by the fragmentation bug. The only way to restore performance appears to be copying the data off the volume, nuking it and then copying it back. Now -perhaps- if I expand the zpool then I might be able to reduce fragmentation by copying the tablespace on the same volume.
Readit News
Major features added in release:
More specifically:
> A new device (disk) can be attached to an existing RAIDZ vdev
https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/man/master/8/zpool-re...
It works by making a readonly copy of the vdev being removed inside the remaining space. The existing vdev is then removed. Data can still be accessed from the copy, but new writes will go to an actual vdev while data no longer needed on the copy is gradually reclaimed as free space as the old data is no longer needed.
Is the ZFS team handling encryption as a first class priority at all?
ZFS on Linux inherited a lot of fame from ZFS on Solaris, but everyone using it in production should study the issue tracker very well for a realistic impression of the situation.
The way ZFS encryption is layered, the features should be pretty much orthogonal from each other, but I'll admit that there's a bit of lacking with ZFS native encryption (though mainly in upper layer tooling in my experience rather than actual on-disk encryption parts)
There have been many man hours put into investigating bug reports involving encryption and some fixes were made. Unfortunately, something appears to be going wrong when non-raw sends of encrypted datasets are received by another system:
https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/12014
I do not believe anyone has figured out what is going wrong there. It has not been for lack of trying. Raw sends from encrypted datasets appear to be fine.
Deleted Comment
How come that Windows still uses a 32 year old file system?
ZFS has license issues with Linux, preventing full integration, and Btrfs is 15 years in the making and still doesn't match ZFS in features and stability.
Most Linux distros still use ext4 by default, which is 19 years old, but ext4 is little more than a series of extensions on top of ext2, which is the same age as NTFS.
In all fairness, there are few OS components that are as critical as the filesystem, and many wouldn't touch filesystems that have less than a decade of proven track record in production.
But you must admit that the situation on Linux is quite better then on Windows. Linux has so many FS in main branch. There is a lot of development. BTRFS had a rocky start, but it got better.
Isn't the feature in question (array expansion) precisely one which btrfs already had for a long time? Does ZFS have the opposite feature (shrinking the array), which AFAIK btrfs also already had for a long time?
(And there's one feature which is important to many, "being in the upstream Linux kernel", that ZFS most likely will never have.)
However, ext4 and XFS are much more simpler and performant than BTRFS & ZFS as root drives on personal systems and small servers.
I personally won't use either on a single disk system as root FS, regardless of how fast my storage subsystem is.
For over six years now, there is an "experimental" option presented by the graphical Ubuntu installer to install the root filesystem on ZFS. Almost everyone I personally know (just my anecdote) chooses this "experimental" option. There has been an occasion here and there of ZFS snapshots taking up too much space, but other than this there have not been any problems.
I statically compile ZFS into a kernel that intentionally does not support loading modules on some of my personal laptops. My experience has been great, others' mileage may (certainly will) vary.
Btrfs also supports async/offline dedupe
You can also layer it on top of mdadm. Iirc zfs strongly discourages using anything but direct attached physical disks.
No one wants that, openZFS is much healthier without Linux and it's "Foundation/Politics".
Simple. Because most of the burden is taken by the (enterprise) storage hardware hosting the FS. Snapshots, block level deduplication, object storage technologies, RAID/Resiliency, size changes, you name it.
Modern storage appliances are black magic, and you don't need much more features from NTFS. You either transparently access via NAS/SAN or store your NTFS volumes on capable disk boxes.
On the Linux world, at the higher end, there's Lustre and GPFS. ZFS is mostly for resilient, but not performance critical needs.
Los Alamos disagrees ;)
https://www.lanl.gov/media/news/0321-computational-storage
But yes, in general you are right, Cern for example uses Ceph:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1457076/attachments/2934445/515...
The mainline Linux kernel doesn't either, and I think the answer is because it's hard and high risk with a return mostly measured in technical respect?
But considering it's had two drama events within 1 year of getting merged... I think we can safely confirm your conclusion of it being really hard
The key feature for me, which I miss, is the snapshotting integrated into the package manager.
ZFS allows snapshots more or less for free (due to copy on weite) including cron based snapshotting every 15 minutes. So if I did a mistake anywhere there was a way to recover.
And that integrated with the update manager and boot manager means that on an update a snapshot is created and during boot one can switch between states. Never had a broken update, but gave a good feeling.
On my home server I like the raid features and on Solaris it was nicely integrated with NFS etc so that one can easily create volumes and export them and set restrictions (max size etc.) on it.
(I have never used dedup, but it's there if you want I guess)
Reading any file will tell you with 100% guarantee if it is corrupt or not.
Snapshots that you can `cd` into, so you can compare any prior version of your FS with the live version of your FS.
Block level compression.
Paired with Storage Spaces to pool disks of any type or size with location, redundancy or tiering defined per Space, Windows is now a premium storage platform.
With a Windows Server ex a cheap 2022/2025 Essentials you additionally can use SMB Direct/RDMA with a performance up to 10 Gbyte/s over lan and virtual harddisks .vhdx as a zero config and faster alternative to iSCSI.
This is why I have ported me ZFS web-gui napp-it cs from Solaris to Windows to manage Storage Spaces and ZFS and remotely OpenZFS servers like Proxmox (free for noncommercial use)
Honestly I really like ReFS, particularly in context of storage spaces, but I don't think it's relevant to Microsoft's consumer desktop OS where users don't have 6 drives they need to pool together. Don't get me wrong, I use ZFS because that's what I can get running on a Linux server and I'm not going to go run Windows Server just for the storage pooling... but ReFS + Storage Spaces wins my heart with the 256 MB slab approach. This means you can add+remove mixed sized drives and get the maximum space utilization for the parity settings of the pool. Here ZFS is still getting to online adds of same or larger drives 10 years later.
https://github.com/openzfsonwindows/openzfs
Note that it is a beta.
For example, there are numerous new file systems people use: OneDrive, Google Drive, iCloud Storage. Do you get it?
Not only is expansion completely transparent and resumable, it also maintains redundancy throughout the process.
That said, there is one tiny caveat people should be aware of:
> After the expansion completes, old blocks remain with their old data-to-parity ratio (e.g. 5-wide RAIDZ2, has 3 data to 2 parity), but distributed among the larger set of disks. New blocks will be written with the new data-to-parity ratio (e.g. a 5-wide RAIDZ2 which has been expanded once to 6-wide, has 4 data to 2 parity).
For example, home users generally don't want to buy all of their storage up front. They want to add additional disks as the array fills up. Being able to start with a 2-disk raidz1 and later upgrade that to a 3-disk and eventually 4-disk array is amazing. It's a lot less amazing if you end up with a 55% storage efficiency rather than 66% you'd ideally get from a 2-disk to 3-disk upgrade. That's 11% of your total disk capacity wasted, without any benefit whatsoever.
Please tell me I've misunderstood this, because to me it is a pretty useless implementation if I haven't.
The slides here explain how it works:
https://openzfs.org/w/images/5/5e/RAIDZ_Expansion_2023.pdf
Anyway, you are not entirely wrong. The old data will have the old parity:data ratio while new data will have the new parity:data ratio. As old data is freed from the vdev, new writes will use the new parity:data ratio. You can speed this up by doing send/receive, or by deleting all snapshots and then rewriting the files in place. This has the caveat that reflinks will not survive the operation, such that if you used reflinks to deduplicate storage, you will find the deduplication effect is gone afterward.
You can see this in the presentation[1] slides[2].
The reason this is sub-optimal post-expansion is because, in your example, the old maximal stripe width is lower than the post-expansion maximal stripe width.
Your example is a bit unfortunate in terms of allocated blocks vs layout, but if we tweak it slightly, then
would after RAID-Z expansion would become Ie you added a disk with 3 new blocks, and so total free space after is 1+3 = 4 blocks.However if the same data was written in the post-expanded vdev configuration, it would have become
Ie, you'd have 6 free blocks not just 4 blocks.Of course this doesn't count for writes which end up taking less than the maximal stripe width.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqyNHyq0LYM
[2]: https://openzfs.org/w/images/5/5e/RAIDZ_Expansion_2023.pdf
However, if you replace the smallest disk with a new, larger drive, and resilver, then it'll now use the new smallest disk as the baseline, and use that extra space on the other drives.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
This new operation seems somewhat more sophisticated.
btrfs and the new bcachefs can do RAID with mixed drives, but I can’t trust either of them with my data yet.
As far as I know shrinking a pool is still not possible though. So if you have a pool with 5 drives and add a 6th, you can't go back to 5 drives even if there is very little data in it.
You can do borderline insane single-vdev setups like RAID-Z3 with 4 disks (3 Disks worth of redundancy) of the most expensive and highest density hard drives money can buy right now, for an initial effective space usage of 25% and then keep buying and expanding Disk by Disk, with the space demand growing, up to something like 12ish disks. Disk prices dropping as time goes on and a spread out failure chance with disks being added at different times.
When you expand your array, your existing data will not be stored any more efficiently.
To get the new parity/data ratios, you would have to force copies of the data and delete the old, inefficient versions, e.g. with something like this [1]
My personal take is that it's a much better idea to buy individual complete raid-z configurations and add new ones / replace old ones (disk by disk!) as you go.
[1] https://github.com/markusressel/zfs-inplace-rebalancing
If btrfs had been in better shape, I would have been a btrfs contributor. Unfortunately for btrfs, it not only was in bad shape back then, but other btrfs issues continued to bite me every time I tried it over the years for anything serious (e.g. frequent ENOSPC errors when there is still space). ZFS on the other hand just works. Myself and many others did a great deal of work to ensure it works well.
The main reason for the difference is that ZFS had a very solid foundation, which was achieved by having some fantastic regression testing facilities. It has a userland version that randomly exercises the code to find bugs before they occur in production and a test suite that is run on every proposed change to help shake out bugs.
ZFS also has more people reviewing proposed changes than other filesystems. The Btrfs developers will often state that there is a significant man power difference between the two file systems. I vaguely recall them claiming the difference was a factor of 6.
Anyway, few people who use ZFS regret it, so I think you will find you like it too.
Some simple use-cases are arguably production ready with BTRFS, YMMV.
I use ZFS on Arch Linux and overall have had no problems with it so far. There's more customization and methods to optimize performance. My one suggestion is to do a lot of research and testing with ZFS. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it's been worth the switch for me.