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.
Thread beginning with comment 392345
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Did you read the article?
by JoeBuck on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 22:42 UTC in reply to "You are wrong."
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

The article states directly that the problems causing the corruption were related to bad hardware! Bad hardware is a fact of life, and the existence of bad hardware is the reason why some fsck-like tool is needed.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Did you read the article?
by c0t0d0s0 on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:00 in reply to "Did you read the article?"
c0t0d0s0 Member since:
2008-10-16

Given the BER of normal hard disks, SATA cabling and all the components participating in the job of storing data (a fact of life, too) , it's a miracle, why people still using filesystems without checksums ;)

But back to your comment: You don't fight bad hardware with an inadequate tool like fsck ... scrub in conjunction with the PSARC 2009/479 transaction roolback code is a much better solution.

Reply Parent Score: 2