Migration from the KQ Implementation

devsk devsku at gmail.com
Thu May 5 10:43:26 EDT 2011

On May 5, 4:53 am, Uncle Stoatwarbler <stoatw... at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is as much about perception as reality. A fs without some form of
> single-user/offline recovery mode is regarded with extreme suspcion by
> greybeards, with lots of past experience as the reason why.

An FS without a single-user/offline recovery is exactly what we need.
Who wants to fsck the FS at boot? This is so 90's mentality. ZFS is
the only FS that fills that need for me.

I have reset my system many many times, some even during high FS
activity. I have yet to hit a case where zfs-fuse refused to import
the pool (devsk touches wood..;)). If ZFS fails to import a pool, you
are either hitting a bug in ZFS, which should be reported and fixed,
or you should buy better hardware next time. An FSCK will not help in
this case, because it will fail to do exactly what zpool import is
failing to do: traversing the messed up data structures on disk.

Or you can stop blaming ZFS for being the first FS without a need for
FSCK and live with misguided security that the presence of /sbin/
fsck.ext4 provides.


More information about the zfs-discuss mailing list