[vincenzo992004]

I see that I have 3 choices for the file system when creating a data DVD-R. I read the help files regarding the characteristics of each, and UDF seems to have some advantages. But when I think of UDF I remember the old packet writing software that used UDF, and I also remember how unreliable it was. Is UDF for DVD-R now considered to be as reliable as ISO9660 or Joliet, or should it be avoided for important data applications, like data backups?

Thanks

[gi7omy]

vincenzo992004, on Jan 25 2007, 11:06 PM, said:

Is UDF for DVD-R now considered to be as reliable as ISO9660 or Joliet, or should it be avoided for important data applications, like data backups?

Thanks

In order - No - nowhere near as reliable and yes - avoid it, especially for backups

It's every bit as unreliable as it ever was

[james_hardin]

gi7omy, on Jan 25 2007, 06:18 PM, said:

In order - No - nowhere near as reliable and yes - avoid it, especially for backups

It's every bit as unreliable as it ever was

I cannot disagree more!

Packet writing is not reliable, but the UDF file system is just as reliable as CDFS.

All DVD Movies are made using the UDF file system as are the majority of Backup programs that write to optical media.

UDF is used in packet writing but it is not the file system that causes the trouble…

I have been using it with every CD & DVD I write with Classic ever since XP came out and I have yet to lose one byte of data.

This post has been edited by james_hardin: 26 January 2007 - 04:01 PM

[gi7omy]

James - this is why I said 'nope'

"...I remember the old packet writing software that used UDF..."

He was talking about packet writing - not sessions

[lynn98109]

gi7omy, on Jan 26 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

James - this is why I said 'nope'

"...I remember the old packet writing software that used UDF..."

He was talking about packet writing - not sessions

I think James clarified (to me and others) that .udf and Packet-Writing are not identical.

Lynn

[gi7omy]

I agree Lynn - but when I saw the guy talking about 'packet writing' I automatically assumed that's what he meant

[james_hardin]

gi7omy, on Jan 26 2007, 09:15 PM, said:

James - this is why I said 'nope'

"...I remember the old packet writing software that used UDF..."

He was talking about packet writing - not sessions

Rereading vincenzo's post, I cannot really tell what application he is referring to…

But I think we are agreed:

• Classic – UDF is fine
  
• Packet Writer - doesn't matter, it will fail sooner or later

[gi7omy]

james_hardin, on Jan 27 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

Rereading vincenzo's post, I cannot really tell what application he is referring to…

But I think we are agreed:

• Classic – UDF is fine
  
• Packet Writer - doesn't matter, it will fail sooner or later

Yep - no argument there

[vincenzo992004]

Thanks to all for the replies.

I was referring to EMC. I only mentioned packet writing because that is what is what I (used to) associate UDF file systems with. Thanks for the info that UDF with session writing is OK.

So if someone gives me a dvd (created with unknown burning software) and Windows tells me it is UDF file system, is there a way I can tell if it was created with packet writing or session writing?

Thanks

[james_hardin]

Disc & Device Utility?

If the disc is readable it would not seem to matter…

One caution, all packet writers add a reader to the disc as part of the format process. If you are ever prompted to 'Install the Reader', don't! XP has its' own and it is likely the reader on the disc will not be compatible.

[vincenzo992004]

The reason I got started on this is because a friend is having trouble occasionally with some backups that are being created by some oddball program I never heard of. The disks are UDF so I am wondering if they are packet writer created.

[gi7omy]

It's possible - but also bear in mind that XP's own built in burning s/w uses Session Writing (but that's generally reasonably reliable)