Linked by Pobrecito Hablador on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 21:19 UTC
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris One of the advantages of ZFS is that it doesn't need a fsck. Replication, self-healing and scrubbing are a much better alternative. After a few years of ZFS life, can we say it was the correct decision? The reports in the mailing list are a good indicator of what happens in the real world, and it appears that once again, reality beats theory. The author of the article analyzes the implications of not having a fsck tool and tries to explain why he thinks Sun will add one at some point.
Permalink for comment 392354
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: You are wrong.
by WereCatf on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:57 UTC in reply to "You are wrong."
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Most of your listed problems are related to the problem of buggy hardware, resulting in failed transactions.

That was the whole point of the article here. Bad hardware exists and is actually very very very widely used because it's cheap.

So, ZFS might not usually need fsck or similar, but what do you do in the case where you can't mount it? For example, the hardware has corrupted the ZFS headers and you can't mount your volume and as such the self-healing and correction facilities can never run? Yes, that's right; you need an off-line tool to get it into a state where you can mount it, ie. fsck or similar.

Reply Parent Score: 4