On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Kees Nuyt <k.n...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook <t...@cook.ms> wrote:
> >> Doesn't a scrub do more than what
> >> 'fsck' does?
> > Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct errors
> > bring it back online. Scrub won't even work until the filesystem is
> > imported and online. If it's corrupted you can't even import it, hence
> > -F flag addition. Plus, IIRC, scrub won't actually correct any errors,
> > will only flag them. Manually fixing what scrub finds can be a giant
> IIRC Scrub will correct errors if the pool has sufficient
> redundancy. So will any read of a corrupted block.
> ( Kees Nuyt
Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual fixing.
Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the silent
healing, while a great story, has never actually happened in practice in any
environment I've used ZFS in.
zfs-discuss mailing list