The problem is that, as MacJournals explains, ZFS (as it currently stands) can’t be a drop-in replacement for HFS+. It supports filenames only half as long. It’s case-sensitive rather than case-insensitive/case-preserving. It has inefficient storage for certain extended attributes.
…My guess is that Apple will eventually ship Macs that boot from some version of ZFS. Perhaps it will make changes to ZFS and try to get them into the official version. I don’t think this is an area where it makes sense to swim against the tide. Users may end up having to make a few concessions, but frankly I think using 128-character filenames instead of 256-character ones is a great tradeoff in return for ZFS’s data integrity features alone. (Use of super-long filenames is limited due to OS X’s
The question is not whether or not Mac OS X should support ZFS. Of course it should, just as it should support NTFS (better than it does), FAT32, ISO-9660, sshfs, and any other file system that people want to use. It should be easier to add file system support than it is today.
There is similarly no question that ZFS offers advanced features that make sense for several larger storage pools today, and based on what we currently know about computing, probably will make sense for at least some portable computers in 5-10 years.
We have a big problem, however, with ZFS fans dishonestly asserting all of its “magic” properties without honestly discussing its limitations (the current inability to remove a hard drive from a computer unless it’s been mirrored, the current inability to boot, the inefficient storage of attributes not used daily in Solaris, the extra requirements for CPU power for scrubbing and encryption that would drain notebook batteries). Those are independent from structural differences (shorter filenames, case-sensitivity) that can cause compatibility problems for existing programs in addition to a changed user experience.
HFS Plus is not perfect, but in almost all online ZFS discussions, HFS Plus’s perceived shortcomings are amplified, usually without any specifics other than the vague insinuations that “it’s old” and “it’s not ZFS.” Meanwhile, ZFS’s deficiencies go without mention, either by fanboy blindness or by deliberate spin. See, for example, the insistence that ZFS can “fix errors” without adding that this requires mirroring. Without mirroring, ZFS has a better chance at fixing errors, and can almost always detect errors, but that’s not enough for ZFS fans—they insist on saying ZFS will fix errors, silently and in the background. Without mirroring, that’s simply false.
There was a time in 2000 when what was so recently and aptly called the “Nerd Feedback Loop” insisted that Mac OS X’s support for UFS meant HFS Plus was dead, that within a year or two everyone would be using the “superior” and “faster” UFS because it was better designed for Unix. Yet amazingly, when real people got to see the real trade-offs involved in each file system, most people stuck with HFS Plus.
ZFS is a great choice for some people, and will become a better choice over the next several years. There’s nothing wrong with that discussion, as long as it’s an honest one about the actual features and limits of the relevant filesystems. What we usually get instead is a Web-wide extension of Sun’s marketing department.