I was copying an external drive over to a NAS, and for some reason the NAS wiped it out, and the copy operation failed!
Can anyone recommend any software to do an at home data recovery? I could of course take it to a service, but that is certainly not any cheaper.
I was copying an external drive over to a NAS, and for some reason the NAS wiped it out, and the copy operation failed!
Can anyone recommend any software to do an at home data recovery? I could of course take it to a service, but that is certainly not any cheaper.
Have you tried TestDisk or Recuva?
Have you tried TestDisk or Recuva?
I have not, there are a lot of brands out there and they all claim to be the bestโฆ I will look into them though. Thanks!
I have not, there are a lot of brands out there and they all claim to be the bestโฆ I will look into them though. Thanks!
No problem
I was copying an external drive over to a NAS, and for some reason the NAS wiped it out, and the copy operation failed!
Can anyone recommend any software to do an at home data recovery? I could of course take it to a service, but that is certainly not any cheaper.
It is easy to recover as long as the drive is physically OK and you don't have written over new files. Use Recuva free version. If you are a little more tech suvvy, PhotoRec (freeware) is even better but you will have to use the command line.
It is better to use a second drive for file copying during recovery and avoid writing on the wiped HDD.
Does anyone happen to know if having a massive number of files affects drive health/speed?
For example, let's say we have 2 drives (both are the same model and same capacity). They both contain 4 TB of data. However, one drive has only 100 files, while the other drive has over 2 million. Will one of them run more efficiently/have a longer lifespan than the other one?
Does anyone happen to know if having a massive number of files affects drive health/speed?
For example, let's say we have 2 drives (both are the same model and same capacity). They both contain 4 TB of data. However, one drive has only 100 files, while the other drive has over 2 million. Will one of them run more efficiently/have a longer lifespan than the other one?
Obviously 1TB data transfer would wear the drive with millions of small files more than the one only containing large files.
But I don't think you have to worry about wear on spinners unless you are using them in a datacenter with millions of iops daily. It is more down to luck when and if a drive will fail in a home use scenario.
Does anyone happen to know if having a massive number of files affects drive health/speed?
For example, let's say we have 2 drives (both are the same model and same capacity). They both contain 4 TB of data. However, one drive has only 100 files, while the other drive has over 2 million. Will one of them run more efficiently/have a longer lifespan than the other one?
I can't answer definitively, but would expect the difference to be insignificant.
Speaking only of my own experience, the total usage of space always seems to have a greater impact on performance than total number of files. The 4 TB drive that's only 1/4 full hops along nicely, while the 4 TB drive that's 99% full requires a bit more patience than I have some days.
Triple redundancy still rules the day. And I believe heat is still the biggest enemy.
I have a external hard drive from Western Digital. I store my movies, shows, and more on there. It's still the best hard drive purchase me and my wife got.
๐๐๐