Augeas
-
Posts
4,542 -
Joined
Posts posted by Augeas
-
-
The deleted files will remain (if they still exist) on the drivre they were originally on. The recycler renames files sent to the recycle bin to two components named $I and $R + a set of random characters + the original file extension. Ignore the $I file, the $R is the one you want. Whether these names are kept on final deletion or reverted to the original does not seem to be clear. If you can't find anything then the files may well be gone forever. You could try a deep scan in this case, but it will not return file or folder names.
-
It is not possible to reinstate deleted files, recovery is a copy to a safe place process.
The folder structure can be recreated if required, and if it still exists.
A deep scan will not find file names or folder information, nor will it find any but the first fragment of a file, so may be of limited use.
-
Recuva does not put any file back where it originated from. If a recovery is done then the selected files will be copied to another location for the user to reinstate as required. Shortcuts are .lnk files and should be found, but can easily be recreated. I assume you have looked in the recycler?
-
Recuva won't fix any file problems, it copies whatever it finds in the clusters, be it good or bad data. The exif data is part of the file data and this similary won't be 'fixed' by Recuva.
-
-
There's no published link that I'm aware of. The link is probably known to (let's be generous) a thousand users, against CC's claim of 6 billion downloads, which is statistially zero. Any link that's not published is unsupported, but Piriform staff have mentioned it and Piriform publishes MD5 hashes for the slim and portables. I don't know any other business that operates in such a bewildering way.
This is of course not the answer to the problem raised in this thread, which is a running sore. To keep clear of this I use an old portable version. Yes, unsupported.
-
There is no limit 'on the number of files retrieved' in any version of Recuva.
-
Well, I'm sure some of this will be down to personal opinion, but if you want to avoid 'adversely affecting my SSD' then don't run any defragger against it. My HDD dating back to 2006 which was retired early this year has never been defragged and everything was well, just fine. On an SSD it would be just finer.
It's worth remembering that fragmentation is a logical construct, it doesn't exist on the disk. All a disk knows is clusters, or pages, and some are used and some aren't. Fragmentation is defined in the MFT, and that's what is used to create the Defraggler display and percentages. Whilst a HDD might suffer some slight delay in fetching disparate clusters (but I never noticed) on an SSD the overhead is as minimal as it can get.
Windows 10 does defrag SSDs if certain conditions have been met, as has been discussed here recently. But this is not to reduce fragmentation in general, but to eliminate the possibility of mass extents in snapshot volumes, a very particular and specific aim.
That's my opinion, there will be others. It doesn't sound to me that you have an overwhelming need to defrag your drive. Whether your loss of space is normal Defraggler action I don't know.
-
Because these files are, as it states, not deleted. You can't delete a live file with Recuva. That's CC's job.
-
This thread goes back to the big bang, and you don't have the same problem. Please stick to your original thread.
-
Simply reading a 1 tb disk (at around 150 mb a sec) should take about two hours, if my maths is correct. Recuva does rather more, it runs a normal scan first (which should be a few minutes only) and during the deep scan has to correlate the used (live) clusters with the unused, compare the first section of each cluster with a table of known file headers, build up a list in memory of what valid files it has found, and do all the other things I can't think of at the moment or just don't know about. In any event three days is silly. I doubt if anything good will come if Recuva ever finishes, but what it's doing heaven only knows. I guess it's an HDD, USB?
-
I would think the problem has been resolved by now. Mopakarim, that's a very spammy post.
So much so that you have been politely shown the door.
-
The last two posts (barring yours, Mta) are spam. I think this thread needs pruning. Maybe you are still stunned from yesterday's ODI cricket. I am.
-
It doesn't on mine either, because I'm running Win 10 and the default is sys restore disabled.
-
Sorry, I have no experience of that file system.
-
Difficult to say without knowing what file system is used, and whether camera, phone, etc.
-
And not many peanuts for all that. Avast's new chief executive Ondrej Vicek has waived his salary and bonus and will take just $1 a year indefinitely. He's also donating his $100,000 board fee to charity (he can still receive shares in the company's incentive plan).. The previous CE Vincent Steckler was paid $512,653 salary plus a bonus of $632,627 last year.
When did Avast lose its ! by the way?
I'll answer that myself. The original Avast! blob logo was designed in-house by Martin Novak in 2010. It was redesigned and lost the exclamation mark in late 2016.
-
in my understanding of your post, Recuva has always done what you're suggesting. Run a plain scan, and then you can put whatever filters you like in the File/Path box without rescanning, ad infinitum.
Just press Scan to start a new scan, no need to close Recuva.
-
22 hours ago, Andavari said:
Really the Trim command should just be programmed and baked into every SSD made without the need for some outside source to run it.
Unfortunately the reason why we have TRIM makes this impossible. There is no indication to the SSD controller that a page has been deleted. The deletion is executed by a change to the bit status in the cluster bit map metafile. Whilst the controller can see that a page has been updated, it doesn't know that the page is a bitmap, or what a bitmap is - or what a file is for that matter. So the O/S has to tell the SSD what to do, with TRIM.
-
CCleaner is quite suitable for use on SSDs in its base objective, 'cleaning' junk files, which is a simple delete. The architecture of NAND flash make overwriting pages and blocks impossible for any software. Thus a secure delete, or a free space wipe (both of which overwrite pages) are pointless to attempt and impossible to execute.
To add to Andavari's post, I think TRIM was available from Vista onwards, and SSD controllers have supported TRIM for I guess at least the last five years. The default is enabled. Win10 runs regular TRIMs for you by default.
You may wish to use Recuva to look at your deleted files. Although you will still see a list of deleted file names (they're held in the MFT) if you switch to advanced mode and look at the file header you will see that they are all zeroes, even if you haven't used secure deleteion or wipe free space. That is the effect of TRIM, and may reassure you.
-
One has to ask that if defraggler (and other aftermarket d/f's) are cpu heavy why don't you use Windows defragger? In Win 8 onwards with standard settings you will get a monthly defrafg of your HDD and SSD drives anyway if certain conditions are met. Sometimes Widows can look after itself quite well.
-
Why not just move some of your data folders to the D drive? That would be the same as 'taking away' space from the D drive, and exceedingly easy.
-
What are top 10 spammers of 2019 ?
I dunno, but you're on the list.
-
Hide files
in Recuva
Yes. It's the same way that CC wipes the Master File Table.
Recuva can't find WIndowsImageBackup file
in Recuva
Posted
Recuva normal scan will list all deleted files for which a record exists in the MFT, no matter what their name or extension is, or whether they have an extension at all. Deep scan will scan for a specific list of extensions. It will not find files with an unknown, or no extension.
If a normal scan can't find the file then the record in the MFT is most likely not available any more - reused or overwritten. If a deep scan can't find the file then it probably has an unknown or no extension.
If it's a very large file (and I would guess it is) then it won't be easy to recover even if it is found.