Submission for comp-unix-microport

[UNIX-UNIX Cp]

Path: tolerant!voder!apple!bloom-beacon!think!ames!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!uport!dougm
From: dougm at uport.UUCP (Doug Moran)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: How does Microport System V/AT handle bad blocks?
Message-ID: <291 at uport.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jan 89 17:36:54 GMT
References: <460 at tarpit.UUCP> <326 at focsys.UUCP> <464 at tarpit.UUCP> <2689 at nuchat.UUCP> <211 at trevan.UUCP>
Reply-To: dougm at uport.UUCP (Doug Moran)
Organization: Microport Systems, Scotts Valley, CA
Lines: 19

In article <211 at trevan.UUCP> trevor at trevan.UUCP (trevor) writes:
>This must be the worst bug in Microports system and is worse than most
>viruses. Why didnt Microport warn us of this problem? If they knew
>about it I think it was totally negligent of them not to have told us.

In the Release Notes for Release 2.4 of System V/AT, on page R-21,
is the following:

"File systems greater than approx. 130000 blocks experience corruption
over time that fsck can't repair.  fsck may report negative numbers
and corrupt the file system further (#605)."

There *is* a bug in fsck, we *are* aware of it, and we *are*
trying to fix it.  And we did try and warn you.  How can we
we warn you better (no sarcasm intended; I am trying to make
the Release Notes etc. more user-friendly)?

Doug Moran,
Tech. Pubs.