> I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern > features like reiser4 or xfs
Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example. Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much else running on that box, most of your content will be served from RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a difference anyways.
