Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Nov 2009 23:42 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris "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 393402
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Contradictory post...
by Dryhte on Sat 7th Nov 2009 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Contradictory post..."
Dryhte
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.


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.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[4]: Contradictory post...
by c0t0d0s0 on Sat 7th Nov 2009 18:02 in reply to "RE[3]: Contradictory post..."
c0t0d0s0 Member since:
2008-10-16

The PSARC mentioned in the linked text is the method to get around such problems, as it rolls back to a consistent state by simply importing the pool at another transaction group number ...

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[5]: Contradictory post...
by Dryhte on Sat 7th Nov 2009 18:17 in reply to "RE[4]: Contradictory post..."
Dryhte Member since:
2008-02-05

The PSARC mentioned in the linked text is the method to get around such problems, as it rolls back to a consistent state by simply importing the pool at another transaction group number ...


OK, but my point is that the psarc (whatever that may be) _is_ actually what the original poster was asking for, i.e. a mechanism to allow unimportable pools to be imported.

despite the fact that he uses a term which most of you don't agree with, you implicitly agree with his original point when you say that this psarc allows you to do just that. the OP probably just didn't know about it.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[4]: Contradictory post...
by c0t0d0s0 on Sat 7th Nov 2009 18:03 in reply to "RE[3]: Contradictory post..."
c0t0d0s0 Member since:
2008-10-16

Ah ... one additional point: Forget broken ZFS filesystems. The filesystem isn't unimportable. It's the pool that's resists its import. A pool can contain several filesystems and emulated volumes.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1