From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Rodrigo_E=2E_De_Le=C3=B3n_Plicet?= Subject: Re: Is there a more aggressive fixer than btrfsck? Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:38:18 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20100602155646.GA4041@flcl.lan> <87eifov564.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Daniel Kozlowski , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Weimer Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87eifov564.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> List-ID: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Florian Weimer 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. > > 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.