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 392588
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: You are wrong.
by c0t0d0s0 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You are wrong."
Member since:

You want to look in result of PSARC 2009/479 ( the ). And no it isn't an fsck ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: You are wrong.
by WereCatf on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 19:51 in reply to "RE[4]: You are wrong."
WereCatf Member since:

And no it isn't an fsck

You guys are hanging too much on the word fsck, you know? Try to read the whole post and not cling on to a single word you might not like that much. I was only talking about a way of getting the ZFS volume and/or pool into a sane state, not necessarily a tool called 'fsck' or similar.

Reply Parent Score: 2