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