DutchDaemon
November 2nd, 2009, 22:44
One of the advantages of ZFS is that it doesn't needs a fsck. Replication, self-healing and scrubbing are a much better alternative. After a few years of ZFS life, can we say it was a correct decision? The reports in the mailing list are a good indicative 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.
Lesson to learn: all filesystems need fsck tools. ZFS pretended to avoid it, just like others did in the past, but at some point they will need to realize that there are always obscure cases where those tools are needed, and they will make new - and probably great - tools. Worse-case scenarios always happen. Users will always want a fsck tool when those obscure cases happen. Especially enterprise users!
Article (http://www.osnews.com/story/22423/Should_ZFS_Have_a_fsck_Tool_)
Lesson to learn: all filesystems need fsck tools. ZFS pretended to avoid it, just like others did in the past, but at some point they will need to realize that there are always obscure cases where those tools are needed, and they will make new - and probably great - tools. Worse-case scenarios always happen. Users will always want a fsck tool when those obscure cases happen. Especially enterprise users!
Article (http://www.osnews.com/story/22423/Should_ZFS_Have_a_fsck_Tool_)