OSNews > Thread > "RE[2]: You are wrong." by c0t0d0s0

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.

9 · Read More · 43 Comment(s)

http://osne.ws/hav

Thread beginning with comment 392443
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.

RE[2]: You are wrong.

by c0t0d0s0 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE: You are wrong."

Member since:
2008-10-16

You don't even need something similar to a fsck, you just need a transaction rollback. The rest is done by scrubbing ...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: You are wrong.

by WereCatf on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 11:11 in reply to "RE[2]: You are wrong."

Member since:
2006-02-15

You don't even need something similar to a fsck, you just need a transaction rollback. The rest is done by scrubbing ...

But as said, can you do that if you can't even mount it?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: You are wrong.

by phoenix on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:25 in reply to "RE[3]: You are wrong."

Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, that code has just been checked in. And no, it's not called fsck.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: You are wrong.

by c0t0d0s0 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 19:34 in reply to "RE[3]: You are wrong."

Member since:
2008-10-16

You want to look in result of PSARC 2009/479 ( the http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6067-PSARC-2009479-zpool-recovery-... ). And no it isn't an fsck

Reply Parent Score: 1