I'm currently working on a tool which is supposed to carve fragmented files, like, extracting fragmented JPEGs from a volume without referring to any kind of filesystem metadata. However, the process is very computationally expensive, and any practical speeds require pretty high-end hardware. If I ever was to sell the resulting tool, which would you prefer, - a standalone software with some ungodly hardware requirements, or a website where you can upload your disk image and get the recovered files back after a while, for a reasonable per-GB price?

Likely option A. Customers are overly paranoid about data security.

_________________
Hard Disk Drive (HDD), Solid State Drive (SSD, SATA, NVMe, etc), USB Flash Drive and RAID Data Recovery Specialist in Massachusetts

First option too.
Not easy to upload the entire image of a HDD.

_________________
http://www.pclab.com.pt facebook.com/PCLAB.A.T
ACELab partner

Okay, thank you for the input.

Well, I have it now; not sure if I'm allowed to post a link, but if someone wants a license key to play with, PM me.

PM please

The download is now available at http://www.klennet.com/carver/

It currently works with JPEGs only. I made some provisions for CR2 and NEFs, but that part is still not ready.

Hi,
Only 64 Bit No 32 Bit

_________________
Regards
Amarbir S Dhillon , Chandigarh Data Recovery Labs [India]
Logical,Semi Physical And Physical Data Recovery
Website-> http://www.chandigarhdatarecovery.com

Given 8 GB RAM minimum requirement, yes, no 32-bit.

Well,
i have a case of fragmented jpg files .Lady clicked photos on a sony camera and formatted on a android phone .She was using a microsd in a adapter initially in camera .I will Try out in 64 bit .

_________________
Regards
Amarbir S Dhillon , Chandigarh Data Recovery Labs [India]
Logical,Semi Physical And Physical Data Recovery
Website-> http://www.chandigarhdatarecovery.com

it is 2017 Amarbir..

Brother Haque ,
I am using Windows 7 Pro 32 Bit on most PC.Anyways I tried this 820kb tool on a very very powerful laptop the cpu was ok for this but the tool is a memory resource hog .My 8 gb physical memory was out after 2nd pass and in the third pass when its trying to to combine fragmented jpg it started creating virtual memory in windows and it passed 35gb then it crashed ,I think resource management should be done in the tool ,no idea how to test on live case now

_________________
Regards
Amarbir S Dhillon , Chandigarh Data Recovery Labs [India]
Logical,Semi Physical And Physical Data Recovery
Website-> http://www.chandigarhdatarecovery.com

Am still using this bootable flash for TREX

_________________
Kuwait Data Recovery - UNIX GTC
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. By: Albert Einstein

Amarbir[CDR-Labs],

How big is the media you were recovering for it to consume 35GB RAM?

Well,
I am not sure as i am in home once i saw your post but i think its 32 gb,You like remote access to check it

_________________
Regards
Amarbir S Dhillon , Chandigarh Data Recovery Labs [India]
Logical,Semi Physical And Physical Data Recovery
Website-> http://www.chandigarhdatarecovery.com

How's this project going? I see on the website it now lists CR2 and NEF files. Any progress toward making it optimized and more useful for larger memory stores such as HDDs?

I know a wedding photographer who'd pay anything right now for a working program that could get back a shoot which was lost on a badly fragmented 4Tb drive.

_________________
Data Medics - Hard Drive, SSD, and RAID Data Recovery Service Company

Come January, probably I will optimize it enough to at least do a reasonable attempt against a hard drive. Currently, it will take impractically long time with any hardware imaginable.

don't know if defragmenting would actually accomplish anything.

Since iSCSI LUNs are virtual block IO devices, the seek time optimization which a defragmenter provides would be of little value, since the chance that the read/write head on the HDD devices in the SAN being at the correct position for the next IO request would be about nil.

So, the time spent by the defragmenter to group the disk blocks for access performance would simply generate a lot of SAN disk IO would have no real effect.

Further, all defragmenters work on the basis of that there is no Read cache for the virtual disk. Almost all RAID controllers provide read cache, some even provide write cache. Finally, most SAN software provide read cache functionality. So, if you have predictive read cache the benefit of defragmenting is almost nullified.

Regards,SecretS

_________________
My firmware database:
https://mega.nz/folder/O01DkBRI

Well,
this tool made by alexey always ended up crashing it was a resource hog

_________________
Regards
Amarbir S Dhillon , Chandigarh Data Recovery Labs [India]
Logical,Semi Physical And Physical Data Recovery
Website-> http://www.chandigarhdatarecovery.com