Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!utfyzx!oscvax!rico
From: rico@oscvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Shell 204m Disk Trash'g
Message-ID: <467@oscvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Dec-86 01:19:34 EST
Article-I.D.: oscvax.467
Posted: Fri Dec 26 01:19:34 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Dec-86 06:36:13 EST
References: <6977@decwrl.DEC.COM> <743@watmum.UUCP> <3382@garfield.UUCP>
Reply-To: rico@oscvax.UUCP (Rico Mariani)
Distribution: net
Organization: Ontario Science Centre, Toronto
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <3382@garfield.UUCP> john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes:
>In article <743@watmum.UUCP> rmariani@watmum.UUCP (Rico Mariani) writes:
>>I'm glad I'm not the only one who had this problem.  I thought I was
>>losing my marbles or something.  So far I've been "lucky", all the hits
>>have been on my root block which (thanks to DiskSalv or DiskDoctor)
>>are 100% harmless (pheww!).
>
>Track 40, surface 0, perchance? The distinction between programs is an
>important one, since DiskDoctor will reformat the root block if it decides
>it's munged. DiskSalv I remember as making a *lot* of grinding noises, but
>maybe it is better at recovering files...DiskDoctor always loses >= 1/2 of
>them, since the root block (and 1 other, usually 36 or 43) is what always
>goes on my disks (drive mechanism, no doubt). Or maybe the changes in file
>placement under 1.2 lead to more failures with marginal drives? Either way,
>it would be nice to one day see a read/write error message that was 
>non-fatal...

My errors all happened on track 40 surface 0 as you describe but upon
scrutinizing of the disks I found that I had lost no (zero, none, nil,
zilch) data!  The only side effect of the whole ordeal was that on one
of the 3 disks this happened to, a bunch of files were moved from a sub
directory up into the root.  I'm impressed!

	-Rico