Linked by Pobrecito Hablador on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 21:19 UTC
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.
Thread beginning with comment 392339
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-08-25
And what is this fsck supposed to check and fix? As soon as somebody can answer this a fsck tool wil be made i think.
Fixing/detecting corrupted SHA256 block hashes for the deduplication feature, for one. I've relied on file systems in the past that worked on a similar concept.
Nothing more terrifying than learning that a block of the root fs has a hash of zero!
The fs will need to be offline and the hash values are metadata, so it falls into the 'fsck' category IMHO.
Member since:2008-10-16
Furthermore: Dedup uses the already computed checksums of the filesystem. You don't have to sync it to your data.
Member since:
2007-04-29
And what is this fsck supposed to check and fix? As soon as somebody can answer this a fsck tool wil be made i think.