Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!chinet!ward From: ward@chinet.UUCP (ward) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Beware: chkdsk /f Message-ID: <1344@chinet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 22:19:10 EDT Article-I.D.: chinet.1344 Posted: Mon Jul 27 22:19:10 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jul-87 05:16:44 EDT References: <1333@chinet.UUCP> <5698@ut-ngp.UUCP> Reply-To: ward@chinet.UUCP (Ward Christensen-) Distribution: na Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix Lines: 22 Keywords: back-ups DOS chkdsk PC What do I mean "actually good" files? I mean something like this: <- good directory entries, lets call them #1 thru #20 -> After some program or blow up and writes 00's to part of the dir, you may have something like this: <- #1 #2 #3 #4 {00 trash} #8 #9 ... #20 -> My point is, "directory entries #8 ... #20" are GOOD. You then said: > DOS sure can't find them; a DIR command will verify that the OS > considers the directory empty. Given the above format for directory > entries, I consider CHKDSK's action to be the only reasonable > approach to take. You data is restored, but with in a different > directory with different names. You have the task of copying the > files back. My intention was to infer that by CHKDKSing, you've lost the "good" (meaning in and of themselves, still valid "looking") directory entries. Solution: use a disk utility to change the 00's to e5's, thus allowing the formerly "invisible" entries - GOOD ENTRIES, to again be what they are - your names for the files (not FILEnnnn.CHK with the wrong, rounded up sizes). Sorry I didn't make that point clear in the original message. > Always back up. Of course.