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 393353
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]: Contradictory post...
by c0t0d0s0 on Sat 7th Nov 2009 13:55
in reply to "RE: Contradictory post..."
Member since:2008-10-16
The point is: You shouldn't use such devices with other filesystems, too. Just say NO to such disks. With ZFS you just recognize those error. Since i'm running regular scrubs over my datasets on my home fileservers, i'm pretty disappointed about the quality of SOHO drives.
BTW: When you are using disks directly with SATA or SAS, you won't see such problems. Those disks are reasonably biggest-mistakes free. The problems start, when you have some cheap SATA/PATA to Firewire or USB converters.
RE[3]: Contradictory post...
by Dryhte on Sat 7th Nov 2009 17:15
in reply to "RE[2]: Contradictory post..."
Member since:2008-02-05
The point is: You shouldn't use such devices with other filesystems, too. Just say NO to such disks. With ZFS you just recognize those error. Since i'm running regular scrubs over my datasets on my home fileservers, i'm pretty disappointed about the quality of SOHO drives.
BTW: When you are using disks directly with SATA or SAS, you won't see such problems. Those disks are reasonably biggest-mistakes free. The problems start, when you have some cheap SATA/PATA to Firewire or USB converters.
BTW: When you are using disks directly with SATA or SAS, you won't see such problems. Those disks are reasonably biggest-mistakes free. The problems start, when you have some cheap SATA/PATA to Firewire or USB converters.
ah, but since nobody tells us how to recognize 'those' disks, you can say NO as often as you want without the slightest effect. So unless someone comes up with a HCL or a sort of product matrix which tells you how to recognize 'bad' disks, there will be a need for a way to restore broken zfs filesystems to a usable state.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-02-05
At first you should to throw the sub-sub-substandard hardware in the next available trash bin after copying the the data to a storage subsystem of better quality and wiping the old disks.
Well, one of the most common ZFS catchphrases is that you can do reliable storage with very cheap disks - so it's quite probable that users and enterprises will do exactly that, don't you think?
what would also be interesting is a sort of HCL or a set of criteria with which the average user can decide which of his set of harddisks he should not use zfs on. It's not like there are so many harddisk manufacturs, so how can we decide which of their harddisks we can trust our data to?