On May 19, 1996 at 09:50, Bill Grimsley of 3:640/305.9 wrote:

 BG> Not at all.  In fact, it's actually considerably more robust than FAT in
 BG> many circumstances.  Ever run CHKDSK /F:3 on your HPFS drives?  It's
 BG> absolutely fucking amazing what level 3 can recover.

If I remember correctly, Doug A. (the chief guy in IBM working on HPFS)
said in Usenet last year that level 3 is a "flying blind" mode
when all else fails;  that is, use it if you have nothing to lose, but it's
*remotely* *possible* that level could actually *cause* problems rather
than *fix* them, depending on the state of your file system.

Level 2 is s'posed to be the highest you use for "normal emergencies".

 PE>> Is there specs around for HPFS?
 BG>
 BG> The IBM Redbooks would be the logical choice here.

It's not there - IBM is (was?) not allowed to release HPFS specs because it
was actually *Microsoft* (Gordon Letwin) who actually developed it in the
first place.  People have been discovering bits and pieces here and there,
and putting the information together *outside* IBM in order to effectively
reverse engineer HPFS.  Few people (like the GammaTech bloke) have actually
been *given* HPFS specs for writing OS/2 software since the Microsoft/IBM
split.

Chris Graham would be my vote for the most knowledgeable guy in Australia
when it comes to HPFS (doesn't even work for IBM *or* Microsoft).

Cheers..


    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---