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 393314
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.
RE[2]: Comment by kernpanic
by Dryhte on Sat 7th Nov 2009 06:00
in reply to "RE: Comment by kernpanic"
Member since:2008-02-05
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-20
It seems to me that a script called fsck.zfs containing a zpool restore and a scrub command would satisfy everyone.