That's why when I'm not satisfied with one result, I pass 2 or 3 more programs to see what they can do.
Sometimes one works better than other.

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

I did full scan surface this partially cloned drive with new DMDE 3.5.3.761 Beta version.


Result apparently seem to be pretty good but ReclaiMe Pro (build 196) gives better result (at least in this case).
DMDE last beta version has found same folders than ReclaiMe Pro (build 196), but one of those folder in dmde is empty instead ReclaiMe Pro shows 17 jpg in perfect conditions in that folder.


So i think Reclaime Pro build 196 is very good for recovering data from partially cloned drives (at least for EXT4 filesystems), i've to say that i also did complete scan of the cloned drive under Reclaime Pro build 1872 (which should be newer version than build 196) but it totally fail.
Build 1872 didn't find any good file by analyzing the filesystem, it found a lot of fragmented junk. Also it didn't found folder structure as quick as build 196 (and folders were much less), it found folders only when full scan was about 70% complete (if i remember well).

DMDE detected the filesystem very lately as ReclaiMe Pro Build 1872, but it was able to find just about all files as ReclaiMe Pro Build 196 (exept that folder which i mentioned above)

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

@michael chiklis - I,d be curious to know how UFS Explorer stacks up with this project too. It is a good case to compare apples with apples.

_________________
Luke
Recovery Force Donor Inventory: 5,000+ Fully Cataloged HDDs & Growing

I will try also with UFS, GetDataBack and DataRescue and let u know

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

If we get the scan info of the disk, we'll investigate into this problem and fix it.

_________________
R-Studio Data Recovery Software

Here

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

Hi,
i finished to scan with UFS 7.8.3, it is very good.
It has found exactly the same quantity of files and folders as ReclaiMe Pro build 196 in the filesystem structure. It recovered successfully also the content of that folder which DMDE wasn't able to recover.
About RAW result, ReclaiMe Pro has found about 80.000 files, UFS Explorer about 57.500 but this doesn't mean that reclaime is better than ufs for raw recovering, the only way to find out that, is to extract all raw data with each program to see the differences. I will do also raw recovery comparing at the end, i need about 1 week for that because first i want try to recover filesystem also with GetDataBack and DataRescue and compare them.

P.S.
UFS Explorer was very fast on finding lost partition as ReclaiMe 196.

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

Thanks, I've forwarded the file to our developers. I think, it may be now deleted.

_________________
R-Studio Data Recovery Software

Yes, it's better if someone can delete "WD 2TB HWupgrade.rar" file, please.

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

@michael chiklis, were the empty sectors (relating to head #0) on the clone zeroed, or did they contain stale data that could have contaminated the scans?

_________________
A backup a day keeps DR away.

Destination drive was zero filled before starting to clone.

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

I'm curious as to why some tools can find the folder structure in a matter of minutes whereas others seem to require a full surface scan? Could the performance be improved by choosing the right settings, ie perhaps the default settings are inappropriate?

I read a few articles on superblocks in an ext2 file system and it appears that there are copies at each 8192-block boundary. I don't know if ext4 also has regular copies of the superblock, but if it does, then why can't these tools find the first two consecutive superblocks and infer the locations of the others? Or is there a lot more to it than that? (Yes, I'm ignorant about Linux file systems)

_________________
A backup a day keeps DR away.

GetDataBack 5.50 was able to find EXT4 filesystem from that partially cloned wd drive, DataRescue 5.0.9 was totally unable to recover the filesystem

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

I would be interested in the results of a DMDE Search for Special Sector -> ExtFS Superblock.

_________________
A backup a day keeps DR away.

New version of R-Studio. Automatic recognition and assembly of complex disk manager objects whose components are also various disk manager objects (May be useful for NAS recovery). Drastically improved file recovery and enumeration speed for Ext2/3/4 and UFS1/UFS2 partitions. And may more improvements and bugfixes.

_________________
R-Studio Data Recovery Software

A new version of R-Studio. Support for Catalina's APFS file systems and Fusion drives. Technician version: multiple paths to store recovered files and disk images. Post actions for unattended operation: automatic shutdown once lengthy operations have completed: file recovery, disk scan, and disk imaging. Automatic email notification regarding operation success/failure.

_________________
R-Studio Data Recovery Software

A new build of R-Studio for Windows: some bugfixes.
New versions of R-Studio for Linux and R-Studio for Mac: keeping up with the Windows version. Support for APFS created by Catalina, APFS Fusion drive, complex disk manager objects, new features of the Technician version, etc.

And our Cyber Week: 25% off all our retail software and extended support prices.

_________________
R-Studio Data Recovery Software

any idea if R-Studio could help with this?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=39251

R-Studio may (or may not) automatically assemble even a damaged storage space. If it does, you'll have to copy the Bitlocker partition to some other place and try to open it using Windows.

_________________
R-Studio Data Recovery Software

on that PC I have two storage spaces.

SmallPool, and LargePool

LargePool is ok, and R-studio can see it, SmallPool, it showing up on two drives, but its not showing up on bottom as storage space.