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 393059
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
At the end ...
by c0t0d0s0 on Thu 5th Nov 2009 22:00 UTC
c0t0d0s0
Member since:
2008-10-16

... i don't like the concept of an fsck out of a completely different reason: With fsck you press you data in the form your filesystem expect. When you are lucky enough, it's the same form your data was before, but most often it isn't.

When you rule out bit rot by checksums, cheap and crappy hardware by transaction rollback, power failure with ZIL and always-consistent on-disk-state, this would leave just software bugs to an fsck. But i think, such problems should be handled in the filesystem itself like enabling the code to read the buggy structure and fix it simply by rewritting it correctly the next time, not with a sideband tool.

The advantage: The fsck just put it into the expected form, a bug fix to the code understands the problem and can do exactly the right steps to fix the bug in the structure and not just pressing it into the expected form.

BTW: I've wrote a rather long piece to this topic in my blog: http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6071-No,-ZFS-really-doesnt-need-a-...

Reply Score: 1