On Fri, April 1, 2011 10:38 am, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Chris H <chris#@1command.com> wrote: > > >> On Fri, April 1, 2011 6:29 am, Marko Lerota wrote: >> >>> I read that ZFS don't need fsck because the files are always consistent >>> >> on filesystem regardless >>> of power loses. That the corruption can occur only if disks are damaged. >> But not >> >>> when power goes down. >> >> Complete nonsense. The information you read was false. >> >> > > No, it's really not. ZFS's lack of recovery tools at least in the > beginning were basically non existent. This is because ZFS uses a COW model > with an atomic data management unit design which by it's nature addresses > thing > like fsck, and sudden power loss. However, things outside of a FS's control > still allow corrution to happen so as UPS is just as important with ZFS as > your > traditional FS. Perhaps more important because the difficulty from recovering > from some types of pool corruption. > Greetings, Not to sound disagreeable, but if I interrupt the power during a disk write, no amount of ZFS will insure that the hardware completes it's write without electricity. Nor will any amount of ZFS prevent data corruption as a result of that interrupted write.
> -- > Adam Vande More > > -- //////////////////////////////////////////////////// If only Western Electric had found a way to offer binary licenses for the UNIX system back in 1974, the UNIX system would be running on all PC's today rather than DOS/Windows. --en UNIX veritas! //////////////////////////////////////////////////// _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
