You are correct that btrfs and ZFS are sensitive to low disk space.  This is also related to how cow filesystems function, they need that free space to commit writes and for snapshots because they, by nature, don&#x27;t overwrite blocks.<p>See this for the ZFS example; <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;serverfault.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;556892&#x2F;79238" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;serverfault.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;556892&#x2F;79238</a><p>In both cases the exact amount of free space you desire is a mix of workload, fragmentation, and snapshots.<p>However, I disagree they waste a lot of space.  I think both ZFS and btrfs more than make up for the overhead of free space commits through their space saving features.  cp --reflink, block suballocation, compresssion, and efficient snapshots outweight the overhead, in my case.  Your mileage may vary.