3 ms·

Sorry, but this is nonsense. You don't unlink a file in a filesystem and it magically reappears. Everyone who's ever had an issue of recovering deleted data wou

Sorry, but this is nonsense. You don't unlink a file in a filesystem and it magically reappears. Everyone who's ever had an issue of recovering deleted data would be happy to have had that option. So that's clearly not something that has happened here. Also when I assume that's what's going on, then the phone would make a low level block by block backup of the raw storage device. You really trying to tell me that's what's going on here? And on top of that, that easy recovery of unlinked files, randomly scattered across hundreds or thousands of blocks in the filesystem can just easily be "relinked" and just reappear out of thin air? You got to have zero idea about how all of this works or are one of those corporate shills but this is just the biggest nonsense there is.

tpmoney 2y ago
Well that was an unnecessarily hostile response, especially since you appear to have misunderstood or misread what I wrote. I did not say that the files were unlinked at the filesystem level and somehow recovered as is. I said that they likely were doing a similar user space soft delete where the files themselves were note actually deleted. In fact, my second sentence is: > Instead they are marked as deleted and just left un-displayed / un-indexed until they’re finally overwritten by some need to use that space. I referenced both the unlinking that a program like `rm` would do, and the wear leveling tech in SSDs both as examples of how we already have similar concepts of soft deletes at other layers of the stack. My suggestion was that Apple has added an additional layer on top of this, which does soft deletes at the file presentation layer. That explains both how the files could move with backups (and without "block by block backup") and how they can just be "relinked and just appear out of thin air". I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough in distinguishing what I was suggesting Apple was doing, and the analogies I was using as a comparison point. Perhaps in the future, you could assume good intent and ask for clarification if I haven't been clear enough for you, rather than accusing me of being stupid or a shill.
- Grimeton 2y ago
  [dead]
tengwar2 2y ago
"unlink" has a specific meaning, and it doesn't refer to the way a file is assembled out of scattered blocks. Sorry if this is already familiar to you, but from what you say it may not be. On Unix/Linux filesystems, a link is a directory entry pointing at a file, and there may be more than one such link. Unlinking a file looks like deleting the file from the user's perspective, but if another directory has a link to it, the file is not affected - not deleted, not split in to scattered blocks. Hence a normal copy of the filesystem will copy it over - a block copy is not required.

tpmoney 2y ago

Well that was an unnecessarily hostile response, especially since you appear to have misunderstood or misread what I wrote. I did not say that the files were unlinked at the filesystem level and somehow recovered as is. I said that they likely were doing a similar user space soft delete where the files themselves were note actually deleted. In fact, my second sentence is: > Instead they are marked as deleted and just left un-displayed / un-indexed until they’re finally overwritten by some need to use that space. I referenced both the unlinking that a program like `rm` would do, and the wear leveling tech in SSDs both as examples of how we already have similar concepts of soft deletes at other layers of the stack. My suggestion was that Apple has added an additional layer on top of this, which does soft deletes at the file presentation layer. That explains both how the files could move with backups (and without "block by block backup") and how they can just be "relinked and just appear out of thin air". I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough in distinguishing what I was suggesting Apple was doing, and the analogies I was using as a comparison point. Perhaps in the future, you could assume good intent and ask for clarification if I haven't been clear enough for you, rather than accusing me of being stupid or a shill.

Grimeton 2y ago
[dead]

tengwar2 2y ago

"unlink" has a specific meaning, and it doesn't refer to the way a file is assembled out of scattered blocks. Sorry if this is already familiar to you, but from what you say it may not be. On Unix/Linux filesystems, a link is a directory entry pointing at a file, and there may be more than one such link. Unlinking a file looks like deleting the file from the user's perspective, but if another directory has a link to it, the file is not affected - not deleted, not split in to scattered blocks. Hence a normal copy of the filesystem will copy it over - a block copy is not required.