Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!decuac!macom1!michael
From: michael@macom1.UUCP (Michael Mullins)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: help with missing lost+found!
Message-ID: <252@macom1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 10:35:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: macom1.252
Posted: Wed Aug 19 10:35:49 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 04:36:53 EDT
References: <44059@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Organization: CENTEL Business Information Systems INC.,Rockville, MD.
Lines: 21

in article <44059@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>, rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) says:
> 
> Actually, what should happen is that whoever you got your system from
> should FIX their fsck. The 4.3 BSD fsck will create a lost+found if
> neceessary (and do some other really nice things). If you have a 4.2 BSD
> 
Sorry Rick,
	I don't quite agree with that.  I am not questioning the fact about
the fsck function under BSD, but I don't think I want fsck creating new
directory entries in a filesystem that has questionable integrity(sp?).

	If I have a possible hard error on the drive that is causing
the problems in the first place, how much intellegence must fsck have
in order to avoid that, and other problems when allocationg new blocks
to the lost+found?

-- 
John Michael Mullins
CENTEL Business Information Systems, Inc.
5515 Security Lane, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, (301) 984-3636
UUCP:   michael@macom1.UUCP 	or	decuac!macom1!michael