[Info-vax] Request description of UFS for VMS person

[Bob Koehler]

In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-CNXFNxs7sqdd at rikki.tavi.co.uk>, "Bob Eager" <rde42 at spamcop.net> writes:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:58:56 UTC, 
> koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:
> 
>> In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-totuOmdtgW5K at rikki.tavi.co.uk>, "Bob Eager" <rde42 at spamcop.net> writes:
>> > 
>> > Nobody said VMS was broken! The VMS file system has many advantages. I 
>> > merely pointed out that ffs, at any rate, didn't seem to need a way to 
>> > recover from that situation.
>> 
>>    ffs never has to recover from a unreadable block?  How does that one
>>    get data when a block becomes unreadable sometime after a successfull
>>    write (journals and RAID I understand, but I have no knowledge of
>>    what ffs is using)?
> 
> An unreadable block is simply that. No different to one that's been 
> cleared. Orphaned files that can be recovered.

   So ffs does have to recover, and presumably does it via fsck or
   something similar?  I'm getting mixed signals.