Everything Search don't find all the files?

[islogged]

- http://imgur.com/a/aV7KM

Is this a bug?

- Thanks -

[MVV]

Hm, my Everything finds six:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe
C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe
C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-i..etexplorer-optional_31bf3856ad364e35_8.0.7601.17514_none_1196a9003b674a92\iexplore.exe
C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-i..etexplorer-optional_31bf3856ad364e35_9.4.8112.16457_none_0d3a2c93807c765c\iexplore.exe
C:\Windows\winsxs\wow64_microsoft-windows-i..etexplorer-optional_31bf3856ad364e35_8.0.7601.17514_none_1beb53526fc80c8d\iexplore.exe
C:\Windows\winsxs\wow64_microsoft-windows-i..etexplorer-optional_31bf3856ad364e35_9.4.8112.16457_none_178ed6e5b4dd3857\iexplore.exe

Maybe there is something with your Everything index?

[Horst.Epp]

I guess you are running an much to old version of Everything which doesn't support Hardlinks.
Update your Everything to 1.4.1.846b from
http://www.voidtools.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5718&sid=1b197a6717ecf8e93a74bfe5ef1495f7&start=50

[MVV]

I wouldn't connect hardlink support and searching for files... Search engine should be able to find all these files regardless of hardlink support. Hardlink support may only allow to detect that some results are in fact a hard copies (but it is impossible to find out which copy is the main one).

Anyway, if new Everything filters out hardlinks from search results, I consider this as a bug... Even if it is optional, such option should be disabled by default.

[Horst.Epp]

I wouldn't connect hardlink support and searching for files... Search engine should be able to find all these files regardless of hardlink support. Hardlink support may only allow to detect that some results are in fact a hard copies (but it is impossible to find out which copy is the main one).

Anyway, if new Everything filters out hardlinks from search results, I consider this as a bug... Even if it is optional, such option should be disabled by default.

The 1.4 versions supports and finds Hardlinks by default.
Unfortunately many users still run the old 1.3 versions which misses a lot of features and functions.
I always run the newest beta and never had problems.

[islogged]

Unfortunately many users still run the old 1.3 versions which misses a lot of features and functions. I always run the newest beta and never had problems.

I guess you are running an much to old version of Everything

Ok!

For some reasons i always use the "Final" and not the "Beta" versions of the softwares ...
( https://www.voidtools.com/downloads/ )

For what i didn't to get the Beta version of "Everything" before.
Anyway this Beta version seem to solve this problem ...

I think it can be a good idea to specify the users to get the Beta version in the TC notification box:
http://imgur.com/a/o2tmS

Anyway, problem Solved!
Thx

[MVV]

The 1.4 versions supports and finds Hardlinks by default.
Unfortunately many users still run the old 1.3 versions which misses a lot of features and functions.
I always run the newest beta and never had problems.

I still don't understand how hardlink support is connected to broken searching. All hardlinks exist as files on disk and should be found correctly regardless of hardlink support.

[Horst.Epp]

The 1.4 versions supports and finds Hardlinks by default.
Unfortunately many users still run the old 1.3 versions which misses a lot of features and functions.
I always run the newest beta and never had problems.

I still don't understand how hardlink support is connected to broken searching. All hardlinks exist as files on disk and should be found correctly regardless of hardlink support.

The 1.3 versions simply ignored the links for the indexing.

[MVV]

Perhaps you were talking about symlinks (I've read Everything topics a bit and noticed that latest versions index symlink targets but still ignore junctions)...

Hardlinks are absolutely equal file entries within same volume that point to same file body, and every file has at least one hardlink. E.g. C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe and C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-i..etexplorer-optional_31bf3856ad364e35_9.4.8112.16457_none_0d3a2c93807c765c\iexplore.exe from my result list are hardlinks for the same file, but they both look just as a regular files.

[tuska]

Hi,
I have a question, because I am always not sure about the terms:
If I create a link with NtfsLinks.exe from here: http://www.totalcmd.net/plugring/ntfslinks.html
with value zero, is this
a) a hardlink or
b) a junction
?

Example:
I have a folder "source" in C:\ (C:\_source\) and a subfolder C:\_source\D-I\,
where subfolder "D-I" has a shortcut icon for a special link (Hardlink or Junction?).
(Another folder "destination" in C:\ is used together with this folder for synchronisation).

Everything:
In "Tools - Options - Indexes - NTFS" this folders are shown as follows:
D: (C:\_source\D-I)
I: (C:\_destination\D-I)
and the entries from these folders are counted in Everything(!).

As this is not necessary for me (because they are not real folders, but special links) I have unticked "Include in database".

Hardlink or junction?

Regards
Karl

[Horst.Epp]

Hi,
I have a question, because I am always not sure about the terms:
If I create a link with NtfsLinks.exe from here: http://www.totalcmd.net/plugring/ntfslinks.html
with value zero, is this
a) a hardlink or
b) a junction
?

Example:
I have a folder "source" in C:\ (C:\_source\) and a subfolder C:\_source\D-I\,
where subfolder "D-I" has a shortcut icon for a special link (Hardlink or Junction?).
(Another folder "destination" in C:\ is used together with this folder for synchronisation).

Everything:
In "Tools - Options - Indexes - NTFS" this folders are shown as follows:
D: (C:\_source\D-I)
I: (C:\_destination\D-I)
and the entries from these folders are counted in Everything(!).

As this is not necessary for me (because they are not real folders, but special links) I have unticked "Include in database".

Hardlink or junction?

Regards
Karl

Symlinks or Junctions do not create Drive letters !
So you made more as you told us.
Of course you should disable the NTFS indexes for drives
which are part of an already indexed drive in Everything.

[tuska]

2Horst.Epp
This is what I did: http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=325495#325495 (german thread, only other drives, point 5---- and 6----).
Please see also here: http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=223948#223948 (german Thread)

Unfortunately, I am still not sure whether hardlinks or junctions in such cases are created.
I do not know the exact name, but it works very well.

[Horst.Epp]

2Horst.Epp
This is what I did: http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=325495#325495 (german thread, only other drives, point 5---- and 6----).
Please see also here: http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=223948#223948 (german Thread)

Unfortunately, I am still not sure whether hardlinks or junctions in such cases are created.
I do not know the exact name, but it works very well.

Sorry but none of this lengthy descriptions creates any drive letters.
Only drives are by default automatically included in Everything.
Creating junctions or symlinks will never show any additional drive letter entry
in Everythings NTFS indexes.

[tuska]

So the answer to my question is: Hardlinks!
I'm going to edit the description...

Thank you for checking!

Regards
Karl

[MVV]

tuska,
It seems that latest Everything versions support auto-indexing for symlinks but not for junctions.

You can't create hardlinks for folders. You can create hardlinks or file symlinks for files and junctions or folder symlinks for folders. So you've created junctions because NTFS Links 1.30 can't create symlinks (you can use my NTLinks Maker instead).