No defragmentation, and as far as I'm aware all copy-on-write filesystems suffer greatly from fragmentation once utilization goes too high. ZFS will never recover unless you restart from scratch.
No way to rebalance a pool. Also increasing a pool always results in less reliability (in terms of drive losses that results in the whole pool going down).
No proper recovery tools if something goes wrong.
Then the lack of flexibility talked about in the article. This means the up-front cost and total cost is vastly more than a more typical setup where you can buy drives spread out over many years and take advantage of falling prices, less power consumption and noise (in part because you typically start such an array with higher density drives, since the low cost and longevity allows you to).
Probably forgot some other reasons.
That said I still use zfs (freenas) at home. But because of the above it is quite hard to blindly recommend it.
No way to rebalance a pool. Also increasing a pool always results in less reliability (in terms of drive losses that results in the whole pool going down).
No proper recovery tools if something goes wrong.
Then the lack of flexibility talked about in the article. This means the up-front cost and total cost is vastly more than a more typical setup where you can buy drives spread out over many years and take advantage of falling prices, less power consumption and noise (in part because you typically start such an array with higher density drives, since the low cost and longevity allows you to).
Probably forgot some other reasons.
That said I still use zfs (freenas) at home. But because of the above it is quite hard to blindly recommend it.