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 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."
c0t0d0s0
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."
WereCatf 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."
phoenix 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."
c0t0d0s0 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