Exactly, which is kind of why I raised the question. If HAMMER undo is able to restore a previously corrupted file from history, why then isn't this also comparable to a type of "healing" feature?
ZFS's scrub is automagic once set up via cron, but I can't really understand what makes it all that different from what HAMMER can do when corrupted files are found (assuming history is intact). The second reason why I raised the question is because each time I read about the attributes of ZFS, the self-healing argument is often raised as being one of the so called ground-breaking features. But, HAMMER has similar capability in this regard it seems. It just doesn't appear that clearly in the list of bullet points in HAMMER's favor. On 05/16/2015 04:55 PM, Justin Sherrill wrote: > On May 16, 2015 2:54 AM, "PeerCorps Trust Fund" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What is often mentioned in texts about HAMMER undo however, seems to > revolve around user error and file loss, such as accidental deletions or a > broken config file. But if the above example is also a scenario, can it be > also said that HAMMER has "data-healing" capabilities similar to ZFS's > "self-healing"? > > I always thought self-healing implies an automatic action, and Hammer's > undo is not. This may be a question of semantics. > -- Mike
