Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:07:57 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compare zfs xfs and jfs o Message-ID: <5022104D.8070402@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208072309370.1652@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <793d6519ca3648de7634faff1829b9f7@remailer.privacy.at> <5021641E.4030206@une.net.co> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208072309370.1652@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 07/08/2012 22:09, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> Of course "ZFS doesn't need fsck". Until it fails.
It doesn't need fsck for the normal case of filesystem corruption due to
system crashes: in that case, you stand to lose maybe the last one or
two IO transactions that hadn't made it onto the disk yet, but the data
that was already on the disk will still be consistent.
Needing fsck because the drive is failing and not able to store and
retrieve data reliably any more is a whole different thing. ZFS at
least will discover that this is happening due to the built-in
checksumming and avoid many instances of silent corruption. What it
can't do is take a filesystem containing random errors and reconstruct a
pristine version from it. But then what filesystem can?
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAlAiEE0ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxjCACeM+r4AQeOZJEb2VS5+aLViWxH
oTAAnA6JfAyR+0P6NltF2J+xAWGzNrPd
=UUAZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5022104D.8070402>