BD-R Data Disc : UDF 2.50 VS. UDF 2.60

vbimport

#1

Hello everyone.
I want to burn a blu ray data disc with only a UDF file system since i dont see the point to put joliet and iso to on it since i only use new systems (Windows 7 and higher) and Apple even supports on OS X Blu ray data discs with UDF 2.50 and 2.60.
So really whats the difference between them and wich one is more suitable for archiving.
Dont tell me it doesnt matther wich one you pick because it does.
Im sure higher versions must be improved someway somehow.
I heard of the UDF 2.50 that works with a partition when the data gets unreadable it can correct it back and still read from the partition correct me if i’m wrong.
So does 2.60 do the same ?
And whats the difference between them i really like to know since Blu ray corporation states both are suitable for Blu ray discs.
There must be something more or better in UDF 2.60.
Can please someone explain and not in chinese if you know what i mean :slight_smile: so i can understand it.
I tried google many times but i did not find anything good explaining.
Really dont know wich one to pick either.
Any help and light on the subject would be great.


#2

For archiving? On write-once media? Looking at Wikipedia and associated pages, I’d say there is effectively nothing changed.

Each new UDF version builds on the previous version unless otherwise specified. So 2.60 can, for example, support the metadata partition that was brought about in 2.50, and there wouldn’t be a major change.

However, since 2.60 brought about that “pseudo overwrite partition”, which from the way it sounds is a way for you to update the disc at a later time on discs where you can’t literally rewrite the media, 2.50 wouldn’t support that. But again, that’s only for appending data that would “overwrite” old data – say updating a document to a new version might use this.

But you could still do multiple disc sessions and “update” files in previous versions. This is just a new, potentially more efficient way of doing things.

The metadata partition thing is apparently supposed to increase performance (putting all the extra file details in one block, I imagine, is more efficient that scattering that information out next to each file on the disc). Depending on the program/implementation, the part of the software that creates the file structure &etc may duplicate this information, meaning the metadata won’t be lost. But that doesn’t mirror the entire contents of the file.

Basically, if you’re really going to be archiving using a standard archival tool, the chosen file system will not matter too much. If you’re merely going to be burning things as standard data discs (which I suppose can count as archival, though not the best option available), then maybe UDF 2.50 would help. MAYBE. But in general, you don’t run into an issue where the drive can’t tell that files are there; you really run into issues getting the contents of a file back, if not getting the contents of the entire disc back. Avoiding that kind of problem goes beyond the scope of the features added in new versions of UDF.


#3

[QUOTE=Albert;2747683]For archiving? On write-once media? Looking at Wikipedia and associated pages, I’d say there is effectively nothing changed.

Each new UDF version builds on the previous version unless otherwise specified. So 2.60 can, for example, support the metadata partition that was brought about in 2.50, and there wouldn’t be a major change.

However, since 2.60 brought about that “pseudo overwrite partition”, which from the way it sounds is a way for you to update the disc at a later time on discs where you can’t literally rewrite the media, 2.50 wouldn’t support that. But again, that’s only for appending data that would “overwrite” old data – say updating a document to a new version might use this.

But you could still do multiple disc sessions and “update” files in previous versions. This is just a new, potentially more efficient way of doing things.

The metadata partition thing is apparently supposed to increase performance (putting all the extra file details in one block, I imagine, is more efficient that scattering that information out next to each file on the disc). Depending on the program/implementation, the part of the software that creates the file structure &etc may duplicate this information, meaning the metadata won’t be lost. But that doesn’t mirror the entire contents of the file.

Basically, if you’re really going to be archiving using a standard archival tool, the chosen file system will not matter too much. If you’re merely going to be burning things as standard data discs (which I suppose can count as archival, though not the best option available), then maybe UDF 2.50 would help. MAYBE. But in general, you don’t run into an issue where the drive can’t tell that files are there; you really run into issues getting the contents of a file back, if not getting the contents of the entire disc back. Avoiding that kind of problem goes beyond the scope of the features added in new versions of UDF.[/QUOTE]

So UDF 2.60 is better for RW media then or am i getting it wrong ? Because if thats the case why is HD DVD or Blu ray cold pressed copys manufactured also with the UDF 2.60 system?
And a response to that last sentence, i trust archival grade japanese bd-r media more the flash drives or clouds.
I had worse experience with those lost terabytes on files not goin to that route again.
Because of the inorganic dye blu ray is much more trustable then any other kind of blank media just my 2 cents.
If you regulary check your back ups on errors and make a new copy in time nothing bad will hapen with your important data.
I dont trust HHD really not and Panasonic is king with Blu ray.


#4

[QUOTE=ProLogic;2747686]So UDF 2.60 is better for RW media then or am i getting it wrong ? Because if thats the case why is HD DVD or Blu ray cold pressed copys manufactured also with the UDF 2.60 system?[/quote]UDF 2.60 was finalized by 2005, if what I read is correct. The HD DVD & BD formats still had time to fold the updated version into their specs (it took another year or two before either hit retail in any meaningful manner), so they did. Support for 2.50 just came along for the ride automatically. And they just let 2.60 be the default, in preparation for any instance where a user/producer might have some way of making use of the single addition in version 2.60.

But if I had to guess, it seems 2.60 was made with multi-session burns to optical media in mind, since that’s probably the only time you would ever potentially NEED to pretend that you’ve overwritten old information about an old version of a file. I’d guess it isn’t specifically for rewritable media, but most users treat a BD-RE like they did DVD-RAM and like they use hard drives: incremental updates. Burning software even defaults to using defect management on BD-RE discs in some cases, reflecting the likelyhood of a certain portion of the disc wearing out from multiple uses. And since BD-RE supports these features, BD-R technically supports them, too, so a spare area of a BD-R could still be reserved in the event a few bad spots are detected while burning to a BD-R.


#5

[QUOTE=Albert;2747690]UDF 2.60 was finalized by 2005, if what I read is correct. The HD DVD & BD formats still had time to fold the updated version into their specs (it took another year or two before either hit retail in any meaningful manner), so they did. Support for 2.50 just came along for the ride automatically. And they just let 2.60 be the default, in preparation for any instance where a user/producer might have some way of making use of the single addition in version 2.60.

But if I had to guess, it seems 2.60 was made with multi-session burns to optical media in mind, since that’s probably the only time you would ever potentially NEED to pretend that you’ve overwritten old information about an old version of a file. I’d guess it isn’t specifically for rewritable media, but most users treat a BD-RE like they did DVD-RAM and like they use hard drives: incremental updates. Burning software even defaults to using defect management on BD-RE discs in some cases, reflecting the likelyhood of a certain portion of the disc wearing out from multiple uses. And since BD-RE supports these features, BD-R technically supports them, too, so a spare area of a BD-R could still be reserved in the event a few bad spots are detected while burning to a BD-R.[/QUOTE]

Ok so basicly for archiving UDF 2.50 will be my best option, and technicaly UDF 2.50 is the recommend standard for Blu ray. Thanks for clearing that up. Much apreciated i dont think im goin to use 2.60 then.
Do ypu think i should add iso + joliet with the UDF 2.50 file system ?


#6

[QUOTE=Albert;2747690]UDF 2.60 was finalized by 2005, if what I read is correct. The HD DVD & BD formats still had time to fold the updated version into their specs (it took another year or two before either hit retail in any meaningful manner), so they did. Support for 2.50 just came along for the ride automatically. And they just let 2.60 be the default, in preparation for any instance where a user/producer might have some way of making use of the single addition in version 2.60.

But if I had to guess, it seems 2.60 was made with multi-session burns to optical media in mind, since that’s probably the only time you would ever potentially NEED to pretend that you’ve overwritten old information about an old version of a file. I’d guess it isn’t specifically for rewritable media, but most users treat a BD-RE like they did DVD-RAM and like they use hard drives: incremental updates. Burning software even defaults to using defect management on BD-RE discs in some cases, reflecting the likelyhood of a certain portion of the disc wearing out from multiple uses. And since BD-RE supports these features, BD-R technically supports them, too, so a spare area of a BD-R could still be reserved in the event a few bad spots are detected while burning to a BD-R.[/QUOTE]

So which UDF version should i pick 2.50 or 2.60 ? Wich one would be best ? Maybe 2.60 since thats standard for HD DVD and Blu ray ?
Should i add also Joliet and Iso to it and wich level of Iso is best 1, 2, 3 or v2 ?
If 2.60 is the same with partition data read back like UDF 2.50 then its all good.


#7

Actually, I would just let your burning program give you a recommendation or use its defaults. There’s no need to select anything different, honestly. I know that seems like a non-answer, but since you said these are for use on new computers, letting things go to default won’t hurt.

And I’m pretty sure ImgBurn will let you know if you actually NEEDED a different file system for any reason.


#8

In ImgBurn you can set up all three file systems so if i would use iso and joliet with udf wich level of iso suits the best is level 1 iso good enough ? Because Joliet ads long file names in iso am i correct ?


#9

Level 1 - default - ISO is good enough unless ImgBurn tells you otherwise. And yes, Joliet would help.

…But there’s no reason to worry about all 3 file systems if you’re using these discs in a computer. Any computer that supports a BD drive will read the UDF file system information & ignore the other two, so it wouldn’t even matter what you chose for ISO/Joliet.


#10

Just stick to UDF 2.60, forget the others.


#11

[QUOTE=LIGHTNING UK!;2747775]Just stick to UDF 2.60, forget the others.[/QUOTE]

So if you say forget the others should i just use UDF 2.60 only for blu ray write once data disc?
So not make it a hybrid with iso and joliet ?


#12

You can certainly forget ISO9660 and Joliet. Why waste time and space on out of date file systems? You’re never going to use an OS that can’t read UDF 2.50+ or be made to read it. It actually doesn’t matter if you use 2.50 or 2.60. I don’t suppose there’s any difference in ImgBurn other than the number.


#13

[QUOTE=LIGHTNING UK!;2748111]You can certainly forget ISO9660 and Joliet. Why waste time and space on out of date file systems? You’re never going to use an OS that can’t read UDF 2.50+ or be made to read it. It actually doesn’t matter if you use 2.50 or 2.60. I don’t suppose there’s any difference in ImgBurn other than the number.[/QUOTE]

Ok then ill just use UDF 2.60 as you recommend.
What i actually wanted to do is use UDF 2.60 (since you adviced it to me now) and make it hybrid with iso and joliet but on level x.
You never know if i have to acces the blu ray on an old file system with an external blu ray drive for example and i think the old filesystems are not goin to use that much space but if ypu say i better keep it with UDF 2.60 only then i will not go through with it.
So do you think it doesnt hurt to put iso and joliet on level x on there to ?


#14

It’s already been said that it doesn’t hurt, but there’s no point. Unless you intend to use a computer running something older than Windows XP, Mac OS X 10.5, or a supremely old version of Linux, nothing will make use of the extra file systems. But computers older than that don’t even support the hardware you would need to READ the BD-R.

It won’t majorly hurt to use the extra ones, and it won’t hurt to NOT use the extra one.

But they’re all standards, which means if you can find a device in the distant future that supports a BD drive at all, you will find a device that supports this 10-year-old file system UDF 2.60.

So just. Use. UDF 2.60. Save yourself the headache of worrying about nothing.


#15

[QUOTE=Albert;2748116]It’s already been said that it doesn’t hurt, but there’s no point. Unless you intend to use a computer running something older than Windows XP, Mac OS X 10.5, or a supremely old version of Linux, nothing will make use of the extra file systems. But computers older than that don’t even support the hardware you would need to READ the BD-R.

It won’t majorly hurt to use the extra ones, and it won’t hurt to NOT use the extra one.

But they’re all standards, which means if you can find a device in the distant future that supports a BD drive at all, you will find a device that supports this 10-year-old file system UDF 2.60.

So just. Use. UDF 2.60. Save yourself the headache of worrying about nothing.[/QUOTE]

Ok all i want to do is make a very compatible blu ray data disc thats all why i wanted to add iso and joliet to with it.
But yeah your probably right ISO and Joliet is almost not used anymore anyway especially not on newer windows or new mac os x.
Thanks for the help Albert and Lightning UK its well apreciated and sorry for all the qeustions i just want to do it right.
But just for information what is Level X in Iso and Joliet ? I dont understand its not like standard Iso and Joliet anymore ? Is it a kind of hacked version of the original Iso and Joliet ?


#16

Would it be helpful to have more than one filesystem on the disc in case something damages the disc and the UDF filesystem? Might that provide the possibility of accessing the disc through ISO/Joliet even if the UDF filesystem cannot be read?

I’m just speculating here; perhaps someone can confirm or deny this scenario.


#17

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2748119]Would it be helpful to have more than one filesystem on the disc in case something damages the disc and the UDF filesystem? Might that provide the possibility of accessing the disc through ISO/Joliet even if the UDF filesystem cannot be read?

I’m just speculating here; perhaps someone can confirm or deny this scenario.[/QUOTE]

ISOBuster supports selecting the file system you want on a disc with multiple file systems, so in theory, yeah that’d work out. http://www.isobuster.com/help/file_systems

Valid point, Drage.


#18

[QUOTE=ProLogic;2748118]Ok all i want to do is make a very compatible blu ray data disc thats all why i wanted to add iso and joliet to with it.
But yeah your probably right ISO and Joliet is almost not used anymore anyway especially not on newer windows or new mac os x.
Thanks for the help Albert and Lightning UK its well apreciated and sorry for all the qeustions i just want to do it right.
But just for information what is Level X in Iso and Joliet ? I dont understand its not like standard Iso and Joliet anymore ? Is it a kind of hacked version of the original Iso and Joliet ?[/QUOTE]

ISO9660: This is the oldest format, used for discs and has many limitations. First and most of all it only supports Roman characters (ASCII). There are three different variations for ISO9660: Level 1 (8+3), Level 2 (31) and ISO9660::1999 (Unrestricted). The numbers within the parentheses, are the maximum characters allowed for each file’s name. A more detailed explanation:
Level 1: File names are limited to eight characters with a three-character extension, using upper case letters, numbers and underscore only. The maximum depth of directories is eight.
Level 2: File names are not limited to 11 characters (the 8.3 format) but may be up to the maximum allowed by the 1 byte counter in the dir entry and the filename length byte counter. Typically, this is close to 180 characters, depending on how many extended attributes are present.
Level 3 (ISO9660::1999): Unrestricted.
Restrictions for all these levels are:
All levels restrict filenames to upper case letters, digits, underscores (“_”), and a dot.
File names shall not include spaces, start or end with the dot character, have more than one dot.
Directory names shall not use dots at all.
4 (or 2) GB limit for file size.
from https://cdburnerxp.se/help/appendices/filesystem

And

Folder/File Name Length

If you are creating a ‘Windows Operating System installation image/disc’, then select the option ‘Level X - 219 Characters’.
Level 1 - 11 Characters, 8.3 Format

File names are limited to eight characters with a three-character extension, using upper case letters, numbers and underscore characters only. MS-DOS and Windows 3.x computers usually only support the 8.3 naming standard. If you are preparing an image which should be readable from such computers, be sure that all the filenames are in that format.
.
Level 2 - 31 Characters

File names are not limited to 11 characters (the 8.3 format) but the base name may be up to 27 characters long (total file name length not to exceed 31 characters). Thus, this format is sometimes referred to as the “27.3” format. Windows 95 and later versions supports level 2.
.
Level X - 219 Characters

‘Level X’ as in ‘Level Extreme’. This level might not work on all systems. Use it with care.
…from http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?/top/6392-the-imgburn-functions/

So… Level X/Level 3… It’s an extension. Sort of an update. Still not necessarily preferable over level 1 or level 2 if you’re really concerned about using older devices that don’t necessarily support it.

Making these decisions means you have to know what you intend to use the discs with. That means you have to commit to the idea that you’re only going to be using these discs on computers modern enough to handle ISO9660 Level 2, with Joliet extensions, as well as UDF 2.60. Trying to include anything more just complicates things.


#19

Side note: I think I’ve hinted at this or said this, but you might want to try setting things up and seeing if the file systems you might want to use will even allow you to use the file structure you have. That might help you make a better decision.


#20

Don’t forget that UDF 2.50+ have their own form of data redundancy for the filesystem info in the form of the mirrored metadata partition. Placed at either end of the file data, it’s unlikely you’d damage both of them.