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 393097
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kernpanic
by kernpanic on Thu 5th Nov 2009 23:22 UTC
Member since:

It seems to me the transactional nature of ZFS, the checksums, the 'scrub' command and the recently added zpool recovery feature all negate the need for a fsck utility.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kernpanic
by zlynx on Sat 7th Nov 2009 00:28 in reply to "Comment by kernpanic"
zlynx Member since:

It seems to me that a script called fsck.zfs containing a zpool restore and a scrub command would satisfy everyone.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kernpanic
by Dryhte on Sat 7th Nov 2009 06:00 in reply to "RE: Comment by kernpanic"
Dryhte Member since:

Including the OP.

Reply Parent Score: 1