home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
- Path: sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!news.th-darmstadt.de!cygnus.frm.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de!SYSGAERTNER
- From: sysgaertner@cygnus.frm.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de (M. Gaertner, FRM, TH Darmstadt, Germany)
- Subject: Question about RMS and MSCP-pair
- Sender: news@news.th-darmstadt.de (The News System)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan4.115621.29717@news.th-darmstadt.de>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:56:21 GMT
- Reply-To: sysgaertner@cygnus.frm.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cygnus.frm.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de
- Organization: Fachbereichsrechner Maschinenbau, TH Darmstadt, Germany
- Lines: 26
-
- Hi there,
- happy new year!!!
- Now to my question. I discovered some oddity with RMS and MSCP-served
- disk, at least I think so.
- I understand that MSCP-served disks (aka RQDX3) may do bad-block-revectoring
- on the attached disk. I also understand that, when the original block
- showes unrecoverable READ-errors, the "forced error flag" on the copied
- block will be set.
- What I don't understand is why the RMS then refuses to read the file
- where the forced error-block is in. It always returns the (correct)
- error (xxx, forced error flag set). So why does the revectoring take
- place? I don't care if the file is unreadable because of read-errors or
- forced errors. Or asked different, why isn't RMS showing the file as it
- is with a warning about the damaged block?
- Can anybody give an explanation to me?
- Oh, I know that revectoring bad blocks on the controller-level has it's
- advantages and I like the concept with the forced error flag BUT I don't
- like RMS's handling of these blocks.
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- M. Gaertner
- TH Darmstadt, W. Germany
- Rechnergruppe FB 16-Maschinenbau
- SYSGAERTNER@CYGNUS.FRM.MASCHINENBAU.TH-DARMSTADT.DE
- Phone: Germany, (0)6151/16 5145
-