| ▲ | mustache_kimono 4 hours ago | |||||||
> There's been several instances. I think you're missing the 2nd feature to the parent's point that I take issue with, which is this is not just a bug that a scrub wouldn't find, but it must also be a bug which an fsck would find. The parent's point is -- ZFS should have an fsck tool because an fsck does something ZFS cannot do by other means. I disagree. Yes, ZFS has bugs like any filesystem. However, I'm not sure an fsck tool would make that situation better? | ||||||||
| ▲ | magicalhippo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> I think you're missing the 2nd feature to the parent's point that I take issue with You're right, I did gloss over that point. I guess it should be noted that a lot of what fsck does[1] on say ext4 is something ZFS does on pool import, like replying the journal (ZIL) or trying older superblocks (uberblocks[2]). In that regard it's acting more like XFS[3] from what I can see, which just exits with 0. [1]: https://linux.die.net/man/8/fsck.ext4 [2]: https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/man/master/8/zpool-im... | ||||||||
| ||||||||