Recuva mechanics

[Roofel]

Just wondering, how does Recuva work? How does it locate fragments of files? Does it use Recycled(System folder) to locate fragments?

 

Also another question:)

Does it have any use(Recuva)? All the files i find is like .EX_ and .DL_ . Tried deleting a file and emptying the Recycle Bin, and used Recuva but it didnt show up. Only files with no meaning at all showed up-.-

[Augeas]

Just wondering, how does Recuva work? How does it locate fragments of files? Does it use Recycled(System folder) to locate fragments?

I asked this question some time ago. There were over 1,000 views, but no response. As Recuva scans very quickly I think that it's unlikely to scan the entire disk. So I think the info comes from the file allocation tables that the O/S uses. These must be the old entries that have some deleted flag against them.

 

As Recuva always allocates some name or other to the files, I don't think that it is picking up file sections or fragments from the disk, as they wouldn't have names associated with them. Also this fragmented data would be more or less noise to any software, all the software could do is report sectors as having data in them (and zeroes are data). These bits would generate an enormous report, and couldn't be recovered as files, so perhaps Recuva is taking the right decisions.

 

Does it have any use(Recuva)? All the files i find is like .EX_ and .DL_ . Tried deleting a file and emptying the Recycle Bin, and used Recuva but it didnt show up. Only files with no meaning at all showed up-.-

Well, you can recover files with it, as I have done. Circumstances will dictate whether the file you really want to recover can be found. I have to say though that I've never used Recuva (or anything else except backups) to recover a file that I've lost, I've only used it to check that a file I've deleted has really gone - and they all go eventually. Your filenames with no meaning could be from the Recycler's habit of renaming files it deletes.

 

Rgds.