Honestly, no, I don't consider UFS a modern file system. :-) It's just not in the same class as JFS for AIX, xfs for IRIX, or even VxFS.
-Erik On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 00:40 +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: > Hello Erik, > > Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 5:47:42 PM, you wrote: > > ET> <huge forwards on how bad SANs really are for data integrity removed> > > > ET> The answer is: insufficient data. > > > ET> With modern journalling filesystems, I've never had to fsck anything or > ET> run a filesystem repair. Ever. On any of my SAN stuff. > > I'm not sure if you consider UFS in S10 as a modern journalling > filesystem but in case you do: > > Feb 13 12:03:16 XXXX ufs: [ID 879645 kern.notice] NOTICE: /opt/d1635: > unexpected free inode 54305084, run fsck(1M) -o f > > This file system is on a medium large array (IBM) in a SAN > environment. > > > -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca14-102 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
