Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tikal!hplsla!davidr
From: davidr@hplsla.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Lost clusters, chains, and files
Message-ID: <5280007@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: Mon, 15-Jun-87 16:10:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplsla.5280007
Posted: Mon Jun 15 16:10:33 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jun-87 00:46:26 EDT
References: <58200001@hplabsb.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 20


My personal  experience  does not leave me  enamored  with  CHKDSK.  About one
third of the time I have  resorted to using /F because of errors  reported  by
CHKDSK  I have  lost a lot of  files.  It seems  to be  especially  if  CHKDSK
reported  clusters  held in duplicate (I do not remember the exact  wording of
the error message, and have no way of  intentially  creating  such, but it was
something  to the effect of two files  claiming use of the same  cluster).  In
saying  that I lost files does not mean that they were  erased,  but that they
became  garbage as CHKDSK tried to straighten out which  clusters  belonged to
which file in which order.  A real  nightmare.  I only wish I could figure out
what causes such a mess-up with the FAT to create this "dual ownership".

Otherwise, if CHKDSK  reports lost  clusters, the /F has simply  created a few
garbage  FILE????.CHK  files at the root level from which  nothing  useful has
ever been recovered (in my case), but has restored some usable disc space upon
their deletion.

*******************************************************************************
-David M. Reed ------ hpLSID ------ hplsla!davidr ------ 335-2460 ------ msUN5-
*******************************************************************************