home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!decuac!pa.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!star.enet.dec.com!buda
- From: buda@star.enet.dec.com (Mark A. Buda)
- Subject: Re: Question about RMS and MSCP-pair
- Message-ID: <1993Jan5.191523.28086@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
- Sender: usenet@nntpd.lkg.dec.com (USENET News System)
- Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:15:40 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
-
- In article <1993Jan4.115621.29717@news.th-darmstadt.de>, sysgaertner@cygnus.frm.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de (M. Gaertner, FRM, TH Darmstadt, Germany) writes...
-
- >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.
-
- RMS is not to blame, but the drivers that the I/O subsystem uses. RMS gets
- an error back from the I/O subsystem and has to report it. If you bypassed
- RMS an used QIO's, you would get the same result. All you need to do is write
- to the block where the badblock is and the revectoring will occur and
- the problem will not be visiable any longer.
-
- - mark
-
- buda@star.enet.dec.com
- ...!decwrl!star.enet.dec.com!buda
- buda%star.enet.dec.com
-