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 392883
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: No need for fsck. Period.
by Kebabbert on Thu 5th Nov 2009 18:36
in reply to "No need for fsck. Period."
Member since:2007-07-27
Two reasons:
"One: The user has never tried another filesystem that tests for end-to-end data integrity, so ZFS notices more problems, and sooner.
Two: If you lost data with another filesystem, you may have overlooked it and blamed the OS or the application, instead of the inexpensive hardware."
Member since:
2007-07-27
Read this, and you will understand
http://c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6067-PSARC-2009479-zpool-recovery-supp...