15 replies to this topic

[daveyboye]

I have been using CCleaner for quite some time. I love the program. I however ran across something that could be detrimental to SSD users. Your option to "wipe free space" completely renders a SSD useless. Solid State Drives have reserved space on the drives for firmware and extra space. The "wipe free space" doesn't see these files as allocated by the operating system, thus removing them. Without any firmware on the drive, there is no way to flash firmware on it because both the bios and the operating system can not locate the drive. The only way for this problem to be fixed is for the drive to be sent back to the manufacturer.

I recommend that CCleaner makes the "wipe free space" option impossible to select if it detects a SSD, or that the program is updated to recognize essential reserved space on SSD's and skip over them.

[MrT]

Thanks, we'll look into this.

[daveyboye]

Has this been investigated.  I have confirmed this on two SSD's.  This is a very major issue and one that could also cause legal action against Piriform.

[MrT]

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to reproduce this problem.

CCleaner's Wipe Free Space has been developed using only standard Windows APIs and therefore relies completely on the Operating System when writing to disks.

Thank you

[daveyboye]

MrT, on 04 June 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to reproduce this problem.

CCleaner's Wipe Free Space has been developed using only standard Windows APIs and therefore relies completely on the Operating System when writing to disks.

Thank you

Can you please explain the process of how you tried to reproduce this problem.  What was the configuration used and what Solid State Drives did you test?  I am a writer for a review/news site and we have tested this with an OCZ Vertex with firmware 1.5, and OCZ Agility with firmware 1.5 and also a Kingston SSDNow M-Series all on a MSI 790fx-gd70 board using Windows 7 x64 Ultimate.  Each "Wipe Free Space" operation would get stuck approx at 5%.  After about 5 minutes of nothing, the computer reboots and then a Windows boot error displays.  On further investigation, the bios doesn't even recognize the drives.  Meaning then, Windows can't even be reinstalled on the drive because it does not display.  I know that CCleaner does use Windows API, however it tends to get complicated with SSDs.  Windows 7 automatically disables certain operations when it detects a SSD.  My assumption is that CCleaner is using something that isn't meant to be used when a SSD is detected.  Not sure if this problem can be linked directly back to Windows or just left at the door of piriform.  

All in all, I'm afraid to announce, but we will be making our findings public in about a week.

[JDPower]

daveyboye, on 04 June 2010 - 11:56 AM, said:

This is a very major issue and one that could also cause legal action against Piriform.

daveyboye, on 04 June 2010 - 09:08 PM, said:

All in all, I'm afraid to announce, but we will be making our findings public in about a week.

Couple of things. Firstly all software is used at users own risk. Secondly, threats won't get the issue addressed any quicker

[ishan_rulz]

JDPower, on 05 June 2010 - 08:08 PM, said:

Couple of things. Firstly all software is used at users own risk. Secondly, threats won't get the issue addressed any quicker

Talk about being grateful for the help offered.  

[kroozer]

ishan_rulz, on 05 June 2010 - 09:19 PM, said:

Talk about being grateful for the help offered.  

Like giving someone an old computer totally free, the hard drive dies so they get angry and threaten.  

[daveyboye]

Guys, let's start by saying I am not making any threats.  I love CCleaner and the developers who put such quality time into it.  I came onto these forums to shed light on a major catastrophic bug that CCleaner has in regards with Solid State Drives.  The site that I write for has often featured CCleaner and all of our staff use it.  However, since there is a major move from traditional hard drives to solid state drives as of lately, this incompatibility needs a lot of attention.  One of my writer assistants came across this and brought it to my attention.  We then proceeded to test it on a multitude of Solid State Drives (we have a stock pile of them), and each test produced almost identical results.  Only at this time did I directly write Piriform to explain this issue.  That email went unanswered and I was directed to post it in these forums.  This is exactly what I did.  I am in contact with OCZ to see if they can also replicate the issue.  

My presence here in these forums is only to inform Piriform of the issue and also the repercussions they may have to deal with both in the mainstream and enterprise markets.  I will continue using CCleaner and so will all the staff for our site.  They have been informed by memo to not use "Wipe Free Space" if any of them are currently using Solid State Drives. My writer's assistant is drafting up an article to be announced on our site. It is unanimous amongst our staff that we want to publish this article because of the increasing amount of Solid State Drive users out there and the vast population of CCleaner users.

[Aethec]

Is WFS really needed on SSDs ? According to this, the TRIM command already makes recovery impossible - and that's the only point of WFS.

[ishan_rulz]

Whatever Aethec said, and it was wrong to put in a threat when MrT said that he couldn't reproduce the problem!

[daveyboye]

Aethec, on 06 June 2010 - 11:06 AM, said:

Is WFS really needed on SSDs ? According to this, the TRIM command already makes recovery impossible - and that's the only point of WFS.

ishan_rulz, on 06 June 2010 - 11:17 AM, said:

Whatever Aethec said, and it was wrong to put in a threat when MrT said that he couldn't reproduce the problem!

Absolutely, WFS is not needed on Solid State Drives.  That's why I believe Piriform should take the necessary action to permanently disable the feature when it detects a SSD.  Also ishan, just like I mentioned before, I did not intend to make any threats.  What I meant about the legal action statement is that enterprise businesses and even mainstream users who find themselves in this mess can file legal action against Piriform.  This doesn't mean they will win or anything, but it can cause quite the hassle.  Enterprise solutions who come across this problem have a lot on their plate to lose.  My statement was made to make Piriform aware of the repercussions.  I for one, nor our site would ever file legal action.  It is our job to run across these issues and to test it on a variety of setups.  Not sure why we would file legal action when we are the ones putting ourselves in these situations.

[kroozer]

I don't believe any attorney would accept such case. He / she would be spending a lot of time on a case aware it had almost no chance of succeeding. And I am not aware of any success with similar suits.
Below is part of the CC contract users must agree to before installing.

THIS SOFTWARE IS DELIVERED TO YOU 'AS IS' AND WITH ALL FAULTS. PIRIFORM DO NOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN BY USING THIS SOFTWARE. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY WARRANTY, CONDITION, REPRESENTATION OR TERM CANNOT BE EXCLUDED OR LIMITED BY LAW, WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS OR OTHER TERMS (EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WHETHER BY STATUTE, COMMON LAW, CUSTOM, USAGE OR OTHERWISE) AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 2 SHALL SURVIVE THE TERMINATION OF THIS LICENCE HOWSOEVER CAUSED.

Note: as is, with ALL faults.

[daveyboye]

LoL, most enterprise businesses don't need an attorney to say whether or not they would take on the case.  Most enterprise businesses have attorneys of their own or attorneys under retainer.  We have seen many many similar suits under the same conditions.  The vast majority don't win, but they do create wonderful attorney and court fees for the defendant.  

Getting back to the true issue, is actually having the developers recognize even the slightest problem WFS has on Solid State Drive. Then after considering that the feature isn't beneficial anyway to Solid State Drive, to take the necessary steps to disable it when the software recognizes a Solid State Drive.  It's just one small program coding change and won't take much time for the developers to institute.

[ishan_rulz]

WFS should be used if you want to sell your Drive or something. Its not a feature you would use day-to-day. Also, as said before, SSD has "TRIM".

On the other hand, the "Disable WFS" could be added when SSD is detected as you pointed out.

I guess this should be the end of discussion.

[MrG]

I'll get someone to contact you directly.