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 393412
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[6]: Contradictory post...
by c0t0d0s0 on Sat 7th Nov 2009 19:46
in reply to "RE[5]: Contradictory post..."
Member since:2008-10-16
I see a clear distinction between a tool that checks the metadata of a filesystem and fixes it (the fsck) and a methdod to jump back to an slightly oder state. As far as i understand the article of the OP, the thought explicitly of a tool.
In my opinion the filesystem shouldn't fix any data in such situation and just fall back to an older state, as it's absolutly unkown what state on disk is at filesystem other than ZFS.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-02-05
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.