>> Recoverability is designed into NTFS. Users do not have to run a disk
>> repair utility on an NTFS partition.
>> ....
>> This is what I meant when I stated that NTFS is "self fixing". Am I wrong
>> here? Or are we talking different things?
> Misunderstanding ?? What you stated did not say self fixing. My 
understanding
> is that NT works (maps / marks) around the coruptions. Transaction loging 
s
> more like keeping a record of changes as a backup in case of disaster.
> If someone is making a Bank to Bank transfer of millions of bucks, and the
> power gets yanked while one bank has sent but before the receiving bank has
> received, you would wish you had a fall back. Transaction logging provides
>that assurance. Sort of says. Oops! lets  go back to where we were before 
your
> power gave up on you !!
Well.. I do understand what you are saying, but I don't agree entirely in 
your definition of what I meant. If your statement is correct, how do you 
then interpret this:
>> Recoverability is designed into NTFS. Users do not have to run a disk
>> repair utility on an NTFS partition.
This is in fact also my experiance over 4 years with NT. The only time I have 
seen errors requiring a repair utility, has been on faulty HD's, HD's that 
have later shown to be completely lost, and beyond any repair utilities 
capabilities.
So, whatever definitions one might choose, as far as I'm concerned, NTFS is 
fixing all the problems normally associated with poorer file systems such as 
FAT. I have actually run DOS/FAT and NT/NTFS off the same HD for my BBS, the 
DOS/FAT configuration generated errors requiring a fixing utility, on a 
weekly basis. NT/NTFS has _yet_ not done so, and I have been running it since 
May 1, 1997. That explains the lot for me?
Torbj|rn
--- BBBS/NT v3.42 ToMmIk-4v
---------------