Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest optos

Version 2.2.4 - Corruped/Unreadanle structure using Joliet

Recommended Posts

Guest optos

Data discs burned with joliet format are not readable. When attempting to browse disc data directories with Windows Explorer, the following message displays: "The disc structure is corrupted and unreadable". Burning with ISO level 2 format works fine.

I am using a Lite-On writer LTR 48126S (48x12x48).

Is this a problem with the Lite-On writer? Or is it rather a bug in CDBurnerXP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Data discs burned with joliet format are not readable. When attempting to browse disc data directories with Windows Explorer, the following message displays: "The disc structure is corrupted and unreadable". Burning with ISO level 2 format works fine.

Did you try only once with Joliet format? To be sure that it is a bug you should to multiple tests. In general Joliet mode should work fine.

I am using a Lite-On writer LTR 48126S (48x12x48).

Is this a problem with the Lite-On writer? Or is it rather a bug in CDBurnerXP?

I don't think the writer is the problem....but you can test it by using another burning program (burnatonce.com) with joliet mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest optos

Yes, I did several tests using joliet, using both CDR and CDRW supports, at various writing speeds. It always produces an unreadable/corrupted CD.

I tried joliet with burnatonce and Nero 5.5. They both work fine, so I think the writer can be trusted.

However, I noticed that both burnatonce and nero propose joliet names as an option to ISO1 or ISO2, whereas CDBurnerXP proposes joliet as an exclusive choice.

Not sure exactly how CDBurnerXP works with this, but may this be the origin of the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great that you already did these tests. :)

I think I will have a deeper look at it now and let you know what I found out :wink2:

Update: The computer I currently work with is not compitable to CDBXPP, I will let you know in evening (when I am back home again), so if you use another time, 2-3 hours after this post. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, Joliet works for me, but as you said, I think Joliet is only an addon for one of these ISO Levels. It does also work if I add files with "unusual" characters, at least for me. I could't get Joliet not to work. Did you already test different files? Maybe there is a bug that Joliet does not work with special files/folders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest optos

Well, it does have something to do with the files or directory structure.

I just tested burning a lot of small files with a shallow directory structure and it works.

Now I have to do some more testing to find where it fails in the 300MB of data that I used for my other tests... :x

I will keep you posted on my findings! It may take some time, though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest optos

Well, well... After extended testing, finally localised 2 files responsible for the whole mess!

I am pretty sure (but unable to fully reproduce the case) that the problem is linked to the way windows stores long file names, which is apparently sometimes not so reliable.

As a matter of fact, the two files in question were copied from another directory and have a (long) filename matching by all but 2 characters the file name of two similar files in the directory that I want to burn. If I reboot my machine in DOS mode and explore the directory, I have 2 times 2 files with the same ~name assigned by windows. How this ever happened is a mystery, normally if two files bear the same DOS name, windows should rename one of them... Anyway, after I deleted the two suspicious files, the Joliet burning problem disappeared!

Any conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest optos

Unfortunately, I cannot upload the files: they contain company confidential source code.

What I find strange in this whole case, though, is the fact that both burnatonce and nero were dealing OK with this DOS corrupted file situation. Any idea? May have to do with low level file access routines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best idea is to wait for next major version first...and then we will see if the problem still exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is related but ... I just created a large-ish ISO file (about 3G) using CDB; then burned it to DVD using Roxio Easy CD Creator 5. Everything seemed to go fine, but upon inspection of the DVD, about half the text files were gibberish. There appears to be nothing special about which were and which were not: most had short files names, for example.

Obviously I don't know if the problem was with the creation of the ISO file or with the way it was burned to DVD. If anyone knows of a way to look inside an ISO file on disk to see what's there, then maybe I can settle it.

[This experience also posted to the main discussion list]

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried my experiment again. This time I did not try to include ".lyx" or the "Documents and Settings" folders in my compilation. It was also a bit smaller overall than the last attempt: 79,000 files in 6500 folders.

I used the same technique as before: create the ISO file with CDB, and then burn it with EasyCD Creator5 (Basic Edition) : CDB's ISO tools still will not recognize that there's an empty DVD disk in the writer.

The good news is that spot-checking the text files (and a couple of pdf files) suggests that this time everything went fine. I'll try again later with an even bigger compilation.

All of which suggests the following questions:

1. Is there any reason that a folder named ".lyx" would cause problems?

2. Is it it safe to try and create an ISO file including "Documents and Settings", which, as we know, is generally "in use" by Windows.

3. Is there any reason to think that a larger number of files --- say 100,000 --- would somehow confuse CDB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.