I am currently working with Filemaker 5.0 on a macintosh OS 9 system.

When I try to open the database file I get a message that says

Make a clone of your recovered file (no records). Then import records from your last good backup.

Hi, Mike. Echo what transpower said. I'll add that file recovery is really only intended to get data from the recovered file; once you have recovered a file, you should consider it dead. Even cloning the file is not a good practice.

You can import the data from the recovered file into your last good backup, assuming you have one; if you don't, your best long-term strategy will be to rebuild the file from the ground up and begin making backups.

HTH,

Jerry

HUH?

Transpower, that would be backwards. A recovered file can, and often does, have corruption still in it. The intent of a receovery is to allow you to get what data you can out of it, and into a Clean file.

Hi Mike,

You probably have lost the data that doesn't show. You should revert to a clean-backup, and import what data is available in "Recovered", or recreated the missing data (records), in your Clean backup (the safest way).

If you don't have a clean back, use this opportunity to update the file, and make those changes you have been wanting to make, but just never got around to it. You can then import your "Recovered" data into it, and/or recreate and data that is missing.

Sorry,

Lee

Hi Jerry,

Wow, a tie. If I hadn't stopped to check my spelling, I would have won.

HAH!

Transpower, that would be backwards. A recovered file can, and often does, have corruption still in it. The intent of a receovery is to allow you to get what data you can out of it, and into a Clean file.

Can't stress this enough: recover the file to get the data out and then immediately trash the recovered file. The recovery process is very aggressive and will delete anything it doesn't like from the file, although it is not a guaruantee that all corruption is gone.

The recovered file is almost never the same as the source file.

I agree; my post could have been interpreted either way--regardless, Lee is right.