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 392456
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
fsck not needed
by tomifumi on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:50 UTC
Member since:

First of all, I talk as someone who already experienced what looked liked a corrupted zpool thanks to a failing drive + a bug in the sata driver + a bug in the zfs release of the time, a really bad and rare case.

The pool consisted of a raidz of 46 500GB drives, taking approximately 18TB.

Fscking the filesystem would have just been a nightmare. In our case restoring the data from a validated and consistent source was both the fastest and the easiest option.

If you can't do a fast restore from a valid backup source and/or don't have any redondancy of your storage and machines, that means you just don't care at all of your data and your business. So I don't see why you should ask for an fsck tool in the first place.

Edited 2009-11-03 08:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4