Undelete a file

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 17, 2005.

  1. Tim wrote:
    > Using 2 of the common undelete programs, the file size reported is ZERO
    > bytes and they both undelete the file. However the problem is that the file
    > should be around 1GB in size so the user has lost all data.


    > Any ideas anyone? The user does not have a backup of the PST file concerned.


    ouch...
    BTW, not that this helps, but, PST files, although having a theoretical
    limit somewhere near 2GB, once they reach ~800MB seem to slow
    considerably, and is usually a good sign that you should make an other
    set of personal folders and put new emails into the new one... rinse and
    repeat.

    At work here we put a file limit of 750MB on them so that users can't go
    over it, well, not unless they move it locally rather than on the file
    server, but thats only likely if they know how to, and most dont.

    Also the 750MB limit is also handy for burning to CD should the need arise.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Tim Guest

    Hi all,

    I have an issue with a file that somehow has been deleted on a Win98 system.

    Using 2 of the common undelete programs, the file size reported is ZERO
    bytes and they both undelete the file. However the problem is that the file
    should be around 1GB in size so the user has lost all data.

    Any ideas anyone? The user does not have a backup of the PST file concerned.

    Thanks.
    Tim, Jan 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Adder Guest

    In article <csf11f$icr$> in nz.comp on Mon, 17 Jan 2005
    13:37:27 +1300, Tim <> says...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I have an issue with a file that somehow has been deleted on a Win98 system.
    >
    > Using 2 of the common undelete programs, the file size reported is ZERO
    > bytes and they both undelete the file. However the problem is that the file
    > should be around 1GB in size so the user has lost all data.
    >
    > Any ideas anyone? The user does not have a backup of the PST file concerned.


    windows will reallocate the file space, as on most systems the swap file
    is dynamic normal activity will cause a deleted file to be overwritten in
    short order
    Adder, Jan 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Tim Guest

    Thanks. I know about the free space re-use issue so that is why the machine
    is switched off at the moment.
    I plan on taking a Disc Copy using Drive Image before the machine gets used
    next.
    It has barely been used since this issue occured on Friday. IE started,
    problem occured, shutdown. started attempted undelete x 2, shutdown.

    I have little confidence in the undelete utilities that are about, can
    anyone recommend a free one? If not a free one, then anything?

    - Tim



    "Adder" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <csf11f$icr$> in nz.comp on Mon, 17 Jan 2005
    > 13:37:27 +1300, Tim <> says...
    >> Hi all,
    >>
    >> I have an issue with a file that somehow has been deleted on a Win98
    >> system.
    >>
    >> Using 2 of the common undelete programs, the file size reported is ZERO
    >> bytes and they both undelete the file. However the problem is that the
    >> file
    >> should be around 1GB in size so the user has lost all data.
    >>
    >> Any ideas anyone? The user does not have a backup of the PST file
    >> concerned.

    >
    > windows will reallocate the file space, as on most systems the swap file
    > is dynamic normal activity will cause a deleted file to be overwritten in
    > short order
    Tim, Jan 17, 2005
    #4
  5. "Tim" <> wrote in news:csf4qm$khc$:

    > I have little confidence in the undelete utilities that are
    > about, can anyone recommend a free one? If not a free one, then
    > anything?


    I've had good luck with this:

    http://www.r-tt.com/

    I've used the NTFS R-UNDELETE, haven't tried the FAT version.
    Costs money.
    Mark Cranness, Jan 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    impossible Guest

    "Adder" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <csf11f$icr$> in nz.comp on Mon, 17 Jan 2005
    > 13:37:27 +1300, Tim <> says...
    >> Hi all,
    >>
    >> I have an issue with a file that somehow has been deleted on a Win98
    >> system.
    >>
    >> Using 2 of the common undelete programs, the file size reported is ZERO
    >> bytes and they both undelete the file. However the problem is that the
    >> file
    >> should be around 1GB in size so the user has lost all data.
    >>
    >> Any ideas anyone? The user does not have a backup of the PST file
    >> concerned.

    >
    > windows will reallocate the file space, as on most systems the swap file
    > is dynamic normal activity will cause a deleted file to be overwritten in
    > short order


    Here's the real gotcha with .pst files:

    As soon as you open Outlook (and/or close it), it updates the .pst. Which
    means that if the user first deleted the .pst, and then opened Outlook
    looking for the mail, the last saved version of the .pst that you'll have to
    undelete is an empty one.
    impossible, Jan 17, 2005
    #6
  7. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Tim Guest

    Hmmmmm. I've heard that elsewhere too.
    I have been looking at the drive image while waiting to see if anyone has
    any concrete answers and found around 24,000 IE cache files which could be
    quite normal... but I am under the impression that FAT32 has a limit of
    65535 or so files.

    The user is not the type of person to delete anything. The PST is an
    oversight in that all data is kept on a server but because the laptop roams,
    the PST goes with it... So my theory is that the system got in a twist with
    too many files - it was running dead slow when I first looked at it. Thats
    the only theory so far and not a good one either.

    Thanks...



    "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Adder" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <csf11f$icr$> in nz.comp on Mon, 17 Jan 2005
    >> 13:37:27 +1300, Tim <> says...
    >>> Hi all,
    >>>
    >>> I have an issue with a file that somehow has been deleted on a Win98
    >>> system.
    >>>
    >>> Using 2 of the common undelete programs, the file size reported is ZERO
    >>> bytes and they both undelete the file. However the problem is that the
    >>> file
    >>> should be around 1GB in size so the user has lost all data.
    >>>
    >>> Any ideas anyone? The user does not have a backup of the PST file
    >>> concerned.

    >>
    >> windows will reallocate the file space, as on most systems the swap file
    >> is dynamic normal activity will cause a deleted file to be overwritten in
    >> short order

    >
    > Here's the real gotcha with .pst files:
    >
    > As soon as you open Outlook (and/or close it), it updates the .pst. Which
    > means that if the user first deleted the .pst, and then opened Outlook
    > looking for the mail, the last saved version of the .pst that you'll have
    > to undelete is an empty one.
    >
    >
    >
    Tim, Jan 17, 2005
    #7
  8. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Tim Guest

    Thanks, I am trying it now.

    "Mark Cranness" <> wrote in message
    news:41eb1917$0$91671$...
    > "Tim" <> wrote in news:csf4qm$khc$:
    >
    >> I have little confidence in the undelete utilities that are
    >> about, can anyone recommend a free one? If not a free one, then
    >> anything?

    >
    > I've had good luck with this:
    >
    > http://www.r-tt.com/
    >
    > I've used the NTFS R-UNDELETE, haven't tried the FAT version.
    > Costs money.
    Tim, Jan 17, 2005
    #8
  9. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    AD. Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:37:25 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Tim wrote:
    >> Any ideas anyone? The user does not have a backup of the PST file
    >> concerned.

    >
    > ouch...
    > BTW, not that this helps, but, PST files, although having a theoretical
    > limit somewhere near 2GB, once they reach ~800MB seem to slow
    > considerably, and is usually a good sign that you should make an other set
    > of personal folders and put new emails into the new one... rinse and
    > repeat.


    What he said! PST files will eventually corrupt themselves once they get
    too big. There doesn't seem to be a fixed size where this happens, but it
    always seems to be before 2GB - as Dave said getting up to 1GB isn't
    really recommended.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jan 17, 2005
    #9
  10. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Ian Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:37:25 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    > > Tim wrote:
    > >> Any ideas anyone? The user does not have a backup of the PST file
    > >> concerned.

    > >
    > > ouch...
    > > BTW, not that this helps, but, PST files, although having a theoretical
    > > limit somewhere near 2GB, once they reach ~800MB seem to slow
    > > considerably, and is usually a good sign that you should make an other set
    > > of personal folders and put new emails into the new one... rinse and
    > > repeat.

    >
    > What he said! PST files will eventually corrupt themselves once they get
    > too big. There doesn't seem to be a fixed size where this happens, but it
    > always seems to be before 2GB - as Dave said getting up to 1GB isn't
    > really recommended.
    >
    >


    OK. I have a PST file that is approaching 1 gig in size. What is the best
    way to deal with it? Is it a simple matter of deleting old emails or is
    it more complicated than that?

    cheerio,
    Ian.

    --
    Feasting on the rotting spendour of western civilisations last golden
    age.
    Ian, Jan 17, 2005
    #10
  11. Ian wrote:
    >>>ouch...
    >>>BTW, not that this helps, but, PST files, although having a theoretical
    >>>limit somewhere near 2GB, once they reach ~800MB seem to slow
    >>>considerably, and is usually a good sign that you should make an other set
    >>>of personal folders and put new emails into the new one... rinse and
    >>>repeat.


    >>What he said! PST files will eventually corrupt themselves once they get
    >>too big. There doesn't seem to be a fixed size where this happens, but it
    >>always seems to be before 2GB - as Dave said getting up to 1GB isn't
    >>really recommended.


    > OK. I have a PST file that is approaching 1 gig in size. What is the best
    > way to deal with it? Is it a simple matter of deleting old emails or is
    > it more complicated than that?


    heh, for a start, BTFU, or back the f**ker up if you value your email.

    What I usually recommend is that if a user has ~1GB of email, they
    should make two new pst files, and split what data they have in half
    between the new PST files, which makes them ~half the size(no-one ever
    splits exactly half due to sorting differences), and a lot more
    "back-up-able"...

    once thats done, make a third new one, and put new emails into that one.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 17, 2005
    #11
  12. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:37:25 +1300, Ian wrote:

    > OK. I have a PST file that is approaching 1 gig in size. What is the best
    > way to deal with it? Is it a simple matter of deleting old emails or is it
    > more complicated than that?


    It's been a long time since I have had to support users with PST files
    (it's all been Exchange Server or non Outlook clients since), but there
    was an archiving feature in Outlook. You'd still need to manage the
    archive files if they got too big though.

    If you're worried about your immediate data security, do what Dave
    suggested then worry about setting up the archiving features afterwards.

    It's probably not critical though if your are still around 1GB you'll
    just slow down a lot, getting closer to 2GB is worrying though. Clearing
    out unneeded stuff then archiving should be OK.

    BTW it looks like Outlook 2003 has improved the situation:
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=830336&product=out2003

    You might not have to worry with 2003.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jan 17, 2005
    #12
  13. AD. wrote:
    > BTW it looks like Outlook 2003 has improved the situation:
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=830336&product=out2003
    > You might not have to worry with 2003.


    Holy crap... 20GB of email...
    I store all that I send and receive(cover my arse mode), and for the
    last two years at work here, I have only 1.2GB

    Home has ~ the same for ~ the same time period.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 17, 2005
    #13
  14. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:41:52 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > AD. wrote:
    >> BTW it looks like Outlook 2003 has improved the situation:
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=830336&product=out2003
    >> You might not have to worry with 2003.

    >
    > Holy crap... 20GB of email...
    > I store all that I send and receive(cover my arse mode), and for the last
    > two years at work here, I have only 1.2GB


    Yeah but in the mid 90s, I probably thought:

    Holy crap... 2GB of email...

    :)

    Who knows what things will be like in 3 or 4 new Outlook versions time? I
    still don't think large monolithic binary files are the best way to store
    email though.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jan 17, 2005
    #14
  15. AD. wrote:
    >>>BTW it looks like Outlook 2003 has improved the situation:
    >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=830336&product=out2003
    >>>You might not have to worry with 2003.


    >>Holy crap... 20GB of email...
    >>I store all that I send and receive(cover my arse mode), and for the last
    >>two years at work here, I have only 1.2GB


    > Yeah but in the mid 90s, I probably thought:
    > Holy crap... 2GB of email...


    heh, mid 90s I thought, "man, windows 3.11 is so cool"

    > Who knows what things will be like in 3 or 4 new Outlook versions time? I
    > still don't think large monolithic binary files are the best way to store
    > email though.


    why?

    /stupid question man
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jan 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:01:51 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > heh, mid 90s I thought, "man, windows 3.11 is so cool"


    Back then I was wondering why it couldn't do stuff my Amiga 500 could.
    Don't ask me what stuff that was though - I've long since forgotten.

    >> I still don't think large monolithic binary files are the best way to
    >> store email though.

    >
    > why?


    Sure PSTs can have certain advantages with internal indexes etc, but your
    data is tied up in a format that can be hard to access and all your eggs
    are in one basket so to speak.

    After using Linux for a little while I've really come to appreciate the
    application independent mailbox formats (especially maildir - mbox is
    still monolithic). You can switch to a new email client for a while to try
    it out, then switch back and forth while still having a single up to date
    mailbox that doesn't need migration between clients.

    Of course you can get similar benefits by using IMAP for instance, so
    that isn't a unique benefit.

    Also because the messages are stored as plain text files, you can get at
    them with anything. Want to turn a junk mail folder into a spam corpus?
    More efficient incremental backups? Want to create a list of all the email
    addresses that have emailed you? Want to run some sort of statistical
    analysis over your mailbox? Want easy import/export to/from different mail
    servers, or other apps? You can do it from the command line or a script
    independently of whichever mail client you use. It just feels more
    'transparent' and less locked in.

    Of course being slightly geekier means that my idea of good 'features'
    will differ from what less technical users think is a good feature :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jan 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Ian Guest

    Thanks guys. I've made a backup of the PST file and will get my partener
    to dung out the old emails with their humungous attachments.

    cheerio,
    Ian.
    Ian, Jan 18, 2005
    #17
  18. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    T-Boy Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > Thanks guys. I've made a backup of the PST file and will get my partener
    > to dung out the old emails with their humungous attachments.


    Get your partner to intall Lookout...
    http://www.lookoutsoft.com/Lookout/

    I think it will make their job a lot easier.

    Alternatively, if they're using O 2003 - down the bottom of "All Mail
    Folders" they'll find Search Folders - and the Large Mail filter within.

    --
    Duncan
    T-Boy, Jan 18, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. LE Hallas, Wakeshire Off

    undelete command in xp?

    LE Hallas, Wakeshire Off, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    11,113
    Shep©
    Jul 15, 2003
  2. Grice Webster

    Need file "Undelete" tool for XP on NTFS - repost

    Grice Webster, May 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    602
  3. Tom

    Undelete or file recovery tool

    Tom, Sep 1, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    337
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Sep 1, 2005
  4. Ojas

    Best Windows File Undelete Software

    Ojas, Apr 14, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    620
  5. Chris F.

    Best File Undelete Software?

    Chris F., Jul 24, 2011, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,028
Loading...

Share This Page