Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!keithe
From: keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 240 MB from Maxtor 1140 with RLL controller?  How is this done?
Keywords: AT RLL Adaptec
Message-ID: <5022@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 29 Apr 89 01:18:10 GMT
References: <623@mitisft.Convergent.COM> <4962@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <4979@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <4994@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <685@mccc.UUCP>
Reply-To: keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 34

In article <685@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes:
>In article <4994@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> I wrote:
>=Just this morning another co-worker scrambled his MS-DOS 3.3 file system, on
>=an RLL drive, with chkdsk /f.  I used Norton Utilities to repair it.  So the
>=problem seems to be chkdsk vs. RLL.
>=
>
>
>????  I've been running an Adaptek RLL controller with a Rodime 203E for
>years, and have upgraded DOS in steps to 3.3.  I use chkdsk, Norton,
>Mace, PCTools, etc. with no problem whatsoever.  Maybe it's the
>particular controller??
>

This is one of those "what the hey?" situations, because, as Pete
bears witness, some Adaptec RLL based machines run chkdsk /f just
fine.  Tom Almy, in the next ofice, uses his sometimes several times
a day and hasn't had it mess up yet (he has an Everex Step/20 with
an Adaptec RLL).  The only thing in common with the two disk trashes
are that they are both Intel 301 Motherboard-based systems.  And
it's possible the users of the trashed systems (intermediate-level
DOSsites) could have had something else that precipitated the whole
debacle.

When/If I get more info on this RLL vs. (?) chkdsk /f I'll pass it
on.  Until then it deserved an anecdotal/apochryphal designation.

kEITHe

(Do I have enough lines for the "followup counter" yet?)

(There, that ought to do it.)

(A couple more for good measure.)