Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:19:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compare zfs xfs and jfs o Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208080918390.3359@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <5022104D.8070402@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <793d6519ca3648de7634faff1829b9f7@remailer.privacy.at> <5021641E.4030206@une.net.co> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208072309370.1652@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <5022104D.8070402@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Needing fsck because the drive is failing and not able to store and > retrieve data reliably any more is a whole different thing. or bad data stored because of non-disk errors. > 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? the question is "how much can". Anyway ok i will not try anymore to stop you from your ZFS religion.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1208080918390.3359>