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 392461
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: .
by cerbie on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ."
Member since:

The solution to that would be parity data saved inline with normal data, sacrificing a little bit of space. Then, some small % of data could be hosed, yet still recovered, whether it was the data, hash, or parity.

But, since server people want better drives and more backups, us cheapskates want all of that 1TB our $80 paid for, and we all want faster storage...I don't see it happening ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 2