mh-nexus.de

I've had searches running on a couple drives for half the day today, one with HxD and one with iBored, both for the same string and both on a separate 4TB drive. Despite the fact the drive iBored was searching is full and the drive HxD is scanning is empty (ok, not really empty, just freshly quick-formatted, but still), and so I would think HxD would have the easier job if anything, or at least they should be similar, HxD was only ~60-70% done iBored finished, and they were started within a few minutes of each other. So it seems HxD's search speed is slower.

Also, while searching, it would be nice if HxD could be minimized. The only way to minimize it is to use the show desktop button on the taskbar, but as soon as any program is restored, HxD restores as well. I like being able to get things out of the way when they're not being actively used.

vertigo wrote: 17 Sep 2018 10:06Despite the fact the drive iBored was searching is full and the drive HxD is scanning is empty (ok, not really empty, just freshly quick-formatted, but still), and so I would think HxD would have the easier job if anything

"Empty" or not makes no difference. At the raw level a disk is just seen as a byte array, not as some indexed file system, so the search is mostly determined by disk size (and how early the occurrence of said string/byte sequence is).

I just made a test and compared the searching time on HxD and iBored, using my laptop 1TiB hard disk. I see similar speed variations in both programs (added a quick MiB/s display to the progress window to see).

If you were searching in parallel with both programs, this could affect performance. Also obviously the brand model and caches etc. affect it.

Both drives are the same model with identical specs. Maybe it's because both are in a USB 3.0 enclosure and the drive iBored was scanning got more bandwidth for whatever reason (I was scanning them simultaneously). Glad to hear it's just as fast, and my situation was apparently just a fluke. Thanks for checking!