Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Nov 2009 23:42 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
"There is a discussion at osnews.com about a simple question: "Should ZFS Have a fsck Tool?". The answer is simple: No. I could stop now, as this answer is pretty obvious when you work a while with ZFS, but i want to explain my position. And i want to ask a different question at the end."
Thread beginning with comment 393328
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I think what you are really saying ...
by c0t0d0s0 on Sat 7th Nov 2009 13:59
in reply to "I think what you are really saying ..."
Member since:2008-10-16
It doesn't check. But you can. But that's a different feature of ZFS, the scrubbing. Such a check would take a long time. It falls back to another transaction groug number, tries to import the pool. In essence it does the same than when you try to import the pool via the latest uberblock than one before.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-11
... is that ZFS needs a recovery tool, but that rather than try to repair damage, it should instead find the last valid snapshot and make that snapshot be the current state. However, to do that the tool needs to be able to do enough consistency checks to determine which snapshots are valid. So it does file system checking, and it does recovery. Sounds like fsck. The only distinction is that it doesn't try to rewrite a bad state into a consistent state.