Thomas

I have a 3,5" SATA hard disk in an external USB disk case which in turn is connected via USB 3.x cable to my Win10 desktop computer. I encrypted the full hard disk with VC and can successfully read and write data after mounting it (in Windows 10). Good. Now I bought a NEW (!) external USB disk case (with UASP support and connected it with the same USB 3.x cable as before). After moving the SATA hard disk from old to new case and connecting it to my Win10 desktop computer I cannot mount it. After...

I have a 3,5" SATA hard disk in an external USB disk case which in turn is connected via USB 3.x cable to my desktop computer. I encrypted the full hard disk with VC and can successfully read and write data after mounting it (in Windows 10). Good. Now I bought a new external USB disk case (with UASP support and with USB 3.x cable). After moving the SATA hard disk from old to new case and connecting it to my Win10 desktop computer I cannot mount it. After moving it back to old case it works again....

I have a VC file container which I connect ALWAYS to drive letter U:\ (on windows). This container is automatically disconnected after 20 minutes of inactivity. On my "normal" hard disk partitions C:\ and D:\ multiple shortcuts exists which point to a file (or folder) INSIDE U:\ When I double click on such a shortcut and U:\ is currently NOT mounted a warning popup appears similar to "File unavailable.... not mounted blahblah....." I have to - click "OK" - Search for Veracrypt.exe - Doubleclick Veracrypt.exe...

Good idea, BUT this cannot be the full reason. First of all: Yes, I am using the same (unencrypted) source partition (on SSD) but different targets: external hard disks, USB flash drive, remote (inhouse LAN) network computers. So the target shouldn't be a problem since they are independent from each other. And for the source partition it seems to me that VC reads every single file step by step. Why not grouping 500 or 1000 of them (with e.g. a total size of 4GB), read them in one step, put them into...

Good idea, BUT this couldn't be the full reason. First of all: Yes, I am using the same (unencrypted) source partition (on SSD) but different targets: external hard disks, USB flash drive, remote (inhouse LAN) network computers. So the target shouldn't be a problem since they are independent from each other. And for the source partition it seems to me that VC reads every single file step by step. Why not grouping 500 or 1000 of them (with e.g. a total size of 4GB), read them in one step, put them...

Good idea, BUT this couldn't be the full reason. First of all: Yes, I am using the same (unencrypted) source partition (on SSD) but different targets: external hard disks, USB flash drive, remote (inhouse LAN) network computers. So the target shouldn't be a problem since they are independet from each other. And for the source partition it seems to me that VC reads every single file step by step. Why not grouping 500 or 1000 of them (with e.g. a total size of 4GB), read them in one step, put them...

Occasionally I mount two VC containers (files or partitions or external hard disks) at the same time. When I perform then (backup) transfers of huge files/dir trees to these containers/partitions in parallel I always noticed a dramatic decrease in transfer speed. Its about approx 5% (or even less) of the speed when I access only one of these VC containers. Its not a hardware problem (i have a core i12 with 16GB RAM and an SSD). This must be an optimization problem of VC. To clarify: I am not talking...

Occasionally I mount two VC containers (files or partitions or external hard disks) at the same time. When I perform then (backup) transfers of huge files/dir trees to these containers/partitions in parallel I always noticed a dramatic decrease in transfer speed. Its about approx 10% (or even less) of the speed when I access only one of these VC containers. Its not a hardware problem (i have a core i12 with 16GB RAM and an SSD). This must be an optimization problem of VC. To clarify: I am not talking...