ISO or UDF for data backups?

I am using Nero 6.3.1.17 and burn my data backups (all file types without any compression) on DVD+RW disks. The drive is the LiteOn LDW-811s. I must read my disks in a lot of DVD drives.

I have read very mixed opinions about this and would like to see the real fact. I have used ISO and UDF for data backups, but I have not found what are the real differences between them. My main interest is RELIABILITY and COMPATIBILITY.

a) Do one of them make a better error correction than the other?
b) If ISO is the ticket, what is better 1 or 2 (or is it just the long names advantage)?
c) If UDF is the ticket, is there any advantage on changing the default UDF options?
d) Which one is more compatible with more readers?

I burn also AVIs and MPEGs on DVD+Rs for watching in my KISS stand alone, I don’t use DVD VIDEO profile for this, just simple UDF compilation, we can catalogue this also as data files.

Thanks a lot m8s.

I also need to know about this.
I have a few ideas, but I can be wrong. Please anyone correct me if so.

  1. I guess UDF is much better than ISO regarding allowed name length and directory levels. There are no restrictions in UDF.

  2. ISO is compatible with DOS and W3.11

  3. UDF 1.02 is compatible from W98

  4. For UDF 1.50 and upper, I guess you need Windows XP (maybe Windows Me).

I will burn data compilations only.
I don’t know if I should use UDF 1.02 or the newer versions 1.50 or 2.0.

In the media tests forum, it seems that everyone is using UDF 1.02.
(I don’t know if they burn data or video).

Is there any worthy improvement in UDF v1.50 or v2.0 over v1.02?

udf and burn it with lowest version of it for comatibilty.
in case discussed 1.02.

thanks D4rk.
there are no big advantages in going to latest udf version?

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=97001&highlight=udf+iso

looking at the isobuster, there are big improvements of 1.50 over 1.02(1.50 seems to have much higher redundancy. should be easier to recover data…)

i use udf1.50/iso…
anyone should be able to read that…

(this is required even for dvd-video discs
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?p=355792&highlight=udf+iso#post355792 )

for maximum compatibility i recommend 1.02,who knows where will he carry the disc.
i recommend this should be read to make final judgement.
http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/102150diffs.pdf

http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/udf102.pdf
http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/udf150.pdf
http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/150200diffs.pdf
http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/udf200.pdf
http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/udf201.pdf
http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/200201diffs.pdf
http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/201250diffs.pdf
http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/udf250.pdf

udf covered.

for maximum compatibility i recommend 1.02,who knows where will he carry the disc.

it doesn’t matter, as he’ll have iso too!
if he has iso, anything should read it…
any os that reads iso, and they all read iso, don’t they…

on my to-do list is a comparison (reading of those boring datasheets) of iso vs. udf…
but generally i believe that in case of media unreadability nothing really helps (especially if inner-most tracks are damaged_luckily this shouldn’t happen so often…) ie that filesystem(s) equals-NOT the data-redundancy safety etc.

iso9660
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-119.htm

use both filesystems(udf1.50 -> so win2k can read it… :slight_smile: , and iso ) on one disc…
that should be safest way…

uff, I know the OSTA datasheets, but they contain a lot of detail and I will be lost.
I need a “global view” of the matter.

@i4004:
the ISO/UDF hybrid seems interesting. Anyone knows the extra space required for the ISO part?
And, what about going up to UDF v2.00 instead of 1.50?

yes, you can use any UDF version if you’re putting ISO there too…(if UDF can’t be read, it’ll defualt to ISO and that should be it…or, it’ll first try ISO…what do you care what was used as long as it’s readable…)
i presume such compilations should even be readable under win95 (as it can read ISO…)…

extra space?
now i would say that it’s “almost none”
ie i fill in the compilation up to 4.486(dvdr holds 4.488mb) and burn as udf/iso=no problems…(this means that even both systems on 1 dvdr take very lil overhead)
i would put one more mb, but i didn’t had it at the moment…heh…

wise idea is to try this with dvdrw, and visit few friends,try on their dvd readers and see what happens…

udf/iso should be most compatible/reliable way of doing things…
i don’t see any weak points in that concept…
that’s why i use it…

Just did a UDF 1.5 burn and it is readable on my win2k machine. Will try 2.0 later today.

@i4004:

udf/iso should be most compatible/reliable way of doing things…
i don’t see any weak points in that concept…

ok, I will have to do some tests. (first I have to reorganize a lot of data I have to burn to get it ready to be burnt.

Thanks for the replies i4004

@kraterz:

Just did a UDF 1.5 burn and it is readable on my win2k machine. Will try 2.0 later today.

ok, thanks for pointing out.

A UDF 2.01 DVD I just burnt doesn’t work in windows 2000. I get a incorrect function error.
I can’t test it on windows xp since the machine here with winxp doesn’t have a dvdrom.

You need to go to:
http://panasonic.co.jp/mke/en/down/index.html
and get this:
http://panasonic.co.jp/mke/data/mkehp/docs/driver/udfrdw2k.exe

At least it worked with my Toshiba SD-M1712…

Windows XP should support UDF 2.01:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=windows+XP+UDF+2.01

several links there talking about XP Pro and Home supporting it.

BTW, Ghost images can surpass the 2GB limit. ISO can’t manage more than 2GB files. Then, those ghost images should be burnt with UDF. But what version is supported by Ghost boot disquette?

or use ghostpe.exe -split=2000
or use rar’s multivolume spanning (split at 2gb)…

thanx for clarifying {^_^}