On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Daniel Kozlowski <dan.kozlow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sean Bartell <wingedtachikoma <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> > Is there a more aggressive filesystem restorer than btrfsck? It simply >> > gives up immediately with the following error: >> > >> > btrfsck: disk-io.c:739: open_ctree_fd: Assertion `!(!tree_root->node)' >> > failed. >> >> btrfsck currently only checks whether a filesystem is consistent. It >> doesn't try to perform any recovery or error correction at all, so it's >> mostly useful to developers. Any error handling occurs while the >> filesystem is mounted. >> > > Is there any plan to implement this functionality. It would seem to me to be a > pretty basic feature that is missing ?
If Btrfs aims to be at least half of what ZFS is, then it will not impose a need for fsck at all. Read "No, ZFS really doesn't need a fsck" at the following URL: http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6071-No,-ZFS-really-doesnt-need-a-fsck.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
