what if to take into account as good only '+' areas in logfile? Currently ddru_ntfsfindbad AFAIK counts as bad only '-' what is wrong as '?','/','' areas are not yet read actually. ddrescuelog --change-types=/?,- helps indeed but it is just workaround.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Bad(-), non-trimmed(*), and non-split/scraped(/) are supposed to be considered as bad in ddru_ntfsfindbad. If those are not working then there is something wrong. Please double check to see if those are actually not working.
Well, it seems that problem is in '?' areas. Anyway, counting it as bad is right and useful when checking domain files and recovering a dirty volume, for example. Currently "?" can show areas where bitmap was not covering a file as recovered what is wrong. If there is some reason to keep current behaviour, then maybe it is worth to make a special cmdline switch?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hello,
what if to take into account as good only '+' areas in logfile? Currently ddru_ntfsfindbad AFAIK counts as bad only '-' what is wrong as '?','/','' areas are not yet read actually. ddrescuelog --change-types=/?,- helps indeed but it is just workaround.
Bad(-), non-trimmed(*), and non-split/scraped(/) are supposed to be considered as bad in ddru_ntfsfindbad. If those are not working then there is something wrong. Please double check to see if those are actually not working.
I did not include non-tried(?). It would be very easy for me to add that if you feel it is needed. I actually can't remember the reason I left it out.
Last edit: maximus57 2015-02-11
I propose to change the line
if (type[x] == '-' || type[x] == '/' || type[x] == '*')
with something like this:
if not (type[x] == '+')
Well, it seems that problem is in '?' areas. Anyway, counting it as bad is right and useful when checking domain files and recovering a dirty volume, for example. Currently "?" can show areas where bitmap was not covering a file as recovered what is wrong. If there is some reason to keep current behaviour, then maybe it is worth to make a special cmdline switch?
The fact that I can't remember why I left it out means it must not have been a very good reason :) Consider it included in the next version.