I'm here desperate to recover as much lost pictures as I can from my HDD. And I want to get answer following subject

Difference between setting HDD Maximum transfer size to 512 Bytes (1 sector) and 128 KBytes (256 sectors)

I can see, that it takes 10 times as much time to scan whole HDD. If it took 3.5 Hours first time, now it will take approximately 42 Hours.


  1. Is it worth the time?
  2. Will that increase possibility of recovering more data detailed images and thus decreasing images with "bad quality" or "with some part missing" while repairing them?

HDD: 500Gb 2.5" 5400rpm SATA
Scanning tool: R-Studio 5.1
Image recovery tool: Hetman 1.1


Your imaging software doesn't tell you?

Usually this would be a question about error handling. If the 128k read returns an error, the entire 128k may be skipped, even if only one of the sectors (512 bytes, or possibly 4KB) is bad.

So if your picture files are much larger than 128KB - like our camera with ~2MB output files - it's unlikely to change a large number of photos from "some damage/degradation" to "no damage". OTOH it might reduce the total area of damage in some photos by... the math says an upper bound of 256x (which is 16x16), and find a few photos that were missed originally. Though for a 4K-sector disk ("Advanced format"), the potential gain is 8x less than that.

It seems a pity not to try. By rights it should be possible to set this running in the background. You could create a temporary admin user to run this, then switch back to your normal user, if you're worried about disturbing the process with an accidental click. The slow streaming write should be pretty un-demanding; with serial ata you don't have to worry about issues with sharing channel issues; and hopefully your OS & disk controller is not-crap when faced with error handling on an independent disk.

  • All images are minimum of 4 Mb, so you are strongly suggesting I try to run full scan 1 sector at a time? – skmasq Feb 17 '13 at 19:42
  • Weakly suggesting. If you can leave a computer running a background program for a few days, I don't see why you wouldn't. But I don't predict miracles, especially if you're only really interested in 100% undamaged pictures. BTW this is generic, theoretical advice - I'm taking it on faith that your recovery software is not-crap, and I've never had to deal with this myself. – sourcejedi Feb 17 '13 at 19:59
  • Sadly I have no spare time to leave it running in background, because I rather download recovered files to my computer and assist repairing those images. Thank you for explanation! – skmasq Feb 17 '13 at 20:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.