I don't know what the current state of ZFS on Linux is, but last time I looked it was done with a very fragile FUSE setup.
I remember hearing rants from FreeBSD VM people about how Linux did superpages wrong, but I don't know any of the details there.
The license doesn't allow to distribute a binary build of it, but you can build your own rpm and deb packages and install it to your own servers.
(According to their FAQ: "In a nutshell [...] This means that a single derived work of the Linux kernel and ZFS cannot be legally distributed."
Honestly, besides some quick tests I don't have any experience to judge how stable it is, but definitely better than the fragile fuse setup you are mentioning.
Anyone has more experience with it?
[1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/
[2] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/firewalls-pf.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU#BSD
Edit: cperciva has more/better examples.
I hope that the availability of official CentOS AMIs will incent startups to think ahead and use it instead of Ubuntu, otherwise they could become a victim of their own success.
Another thing that's great about Red Hat and its clones is that they guarantee backward compatibility across minor releases (e.g. 6.0 -> 6.3), and ensure that if you deploy a given release it will be identical across all nodes. Contrast with Ubuntu, where an installation of a given LTS release (with "-updates") could vary depending on the day you deploy it.
It is a well-curated shop, while GNU/Linux is a street bazaar.
It is a pleasure to administer.
You might want to take a closer look.