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 392879
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by DOSguy
by Kebabbert on Wed 4th Nov 2009 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by DOSguy"
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

Yes, I use ordinary Samsung 1TB spinpoint and they work fine.

However, some of these cheap hardware does not adhere to standards. Then it can be problem - if you do something unusual than just using the hardware. Maybe hot swapping discs, etc. Hot swapping discs must be supported by the drives and the card, and there were some other issues too. I can not remember right now.

What I am trying to say is that if you just use your hardware as normal, and do not try to use unusual functionality (without confirming) then everything is fine. But for instance, that crazy guy that installed OpenSolaris in VirtualBox, ontop Windows XP and then created ZFS raid with 10TB - I do not consider it as normal usage. First of all run everything ontop WinXP is just a bad idea. And on top of that VirtualBox is slightly unstable, and has different unusual quirks that ZFS does not expect. That is the reason he lost his data. Many levels of fail.

If you want to use unusual functionality, first confirm it follows the standards, etc. If you use normal plain functionality, everything is fine.

Reply Parent Score: 2