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 392348
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Did you read the article?
by c0t0d0s0 on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:00 UTC in reply to "Did you read the article?"
Member since:

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