Re: Is there a more aggressive fixer than btrfsck?

["Rodrigo E. De León Plicet" <rdeleonp@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> ZFS doesn't need a fsck because you have throw away the file system
> and restore from backup for certain types of corruption:
>
> | What can I do if ZFS file system panics on every boot?
> [...]
> | This will remove all knowledge of pools from your system. You will
> | have to re-create your pool and restore from backup.
>
> <http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+zfs/faq#HWhatcanIdoifZFSfilesystempanicsoneveryboot>


They *do* make it clear when could something like that happen.

>From the same URL:

"ZFS is designed to survive arbitrary hardware failures through the
use of redundancy (mirroring or RAID-Z). Unfortunately, certain
failures in *non-replicated* configurations can cause ZFS to panic
when trying to load the pool. This is a bug, and will be fixed in the
near future (along with several other nifty features, such as
background scrubbing)."

"Non-replicated configuration" boils down to no mirroring or parity
checking (basically RAID-0 or similar); such a thing implies:

- No redundancy.
- No fault tolerance.

So, yeah, I guess if you go for a "non-replicated configuration",
there will be risks, whether you use ZFS, btrfs,
MD+LVM+$ANY_TRADITIONAL_FS, etc.