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 392439
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ZFS doesn't need a fsck
by Dryhte on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 07:57 UTC in reply to "ZFS doesn't need a fsck"
Dryhte
Member since:
2008-02-05

Everyone who quotes that link implicitly _agrees_ with the article's premise, which is not that zfs needs 'fsck' but *that zfs needs a way to fix unmountable volumes to the point where they can be imported/mounted again*, in order for the filesystem's self healing capacities to kick in. Please try to read between the lines instead of criticising the author for using the word 'fsck'.

Reply Parent Score: 4