On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet <rdele...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
Interesting idea. it would seem to me however that the functionality described in that article is more concerned with a bad transaction rather then something like a hardware failure where a block written more then 128 transactions ago is now corrupted and consiquently the entire partition is now unmountable( that is what I think i am looking at with BTRFS ) -- S.D.G. -- 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
