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 392342
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ZFS was a good first step
by c0t0d0s0 on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:08
in reply to "ZFS was a good first step"
Member since:2008-10-16
Member since:
2006-01-04
FS devs learned a few lessons. FS development became sexy again and everyone saw the need for a new filesysten.
That said, ZFS will be the pioneer with arrows in his back. Other FSs will offer more features and better performance soonish with less resource usage and a more elegant design. (And I don't think Oracle with stop Solaris' negative growth rates.)