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.
Thread beginning with comment 392638
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-10-23
You're not listening carefully enough, then. Linux has the same problems if a disk does not honor barriers. Even funnier, on Linux barriers don't work at all even with properly working disks when LVM is in use. ZFS does not need Linux, but it seems that Linux does need ZFS.
Oh, and ZFS is 100% open, (after all it's in FreeBSD and other operating systems) too bad Linux isn't and therefore can't be integrated with foreign code, just as others can.