I want to backup my whole music and movie collection onto DVD and I would like to protect my data using PAR2. I want to store my files in separate folders for each artist and subfolders for each album. I was thinking that I would burn the DVDs full of data, then rip an ISO image for each disc, make PAR files for that ISO file, and then store the PAR files on a separate disc. My primary concern (over speed or anything else) is that my data is safe. Is this the best way for me to do this? Is there any advantage/disadvantage to storing the PAR files on a separate disc?
Thanks very much for your help.
Offline
Also, I forgot to ask, does it matter if I burn the DVD as UDF as opposed to ISO?
Offline
The only disadvantage to creating the PAR2 files from a ripped ISO and storing them elsewhere is the fact that in order to verify your files: you need to rip a fresh ISO.
You should note that (whilst no one currently has proof), there is the suggestion that if use different tools to do the ripping, the resulting ISO files may not be identical. NB If there is a difference, it would be the same sort of difference you get when using different ZIP programs to create a ZIP file from the same set of source files.
Offline
Hi Peter,
isnt the iso format a fixed standard? eg, like yellow book, orange book etc?
heh i guess one way could be to open up a little competition thread to try and find someone who can find repeatable differences in an iso file <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
--> - and what better util to use than quickpar <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
the prize... hmm that would be a worthy mention as the person who found it? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
Offline
"paulus":3qucc7fk wrote:
Hi Peter,
isnt the iso format a fixed standard? eg, like yellow book, orange book etc?[/quote:3qucc7fk]
The "red", "yellow" etc books define the format with which data is actually burned to a CD/DVD, but no one on this forum seems to know for certain
what the exact relationship is between the ISO file format and what is actually burned to CD/DVD.
Lets divide the set of operations we want to carry out into the following:
[list=1:3qucc7fk][*:3qucc7fk]Creating an ISO file from a set of source files on the Hard Disk.[/*:m:3qucc7fk][*:3qucc7fk]Burning an ISO for to a CD/DVD.[/*:m:3qucc7fk][*:3qucc7fk]Ripping and ISO file from a CD/DVD.[/*:m:3qucc7fk][/list:o:3qucc7fk]Now I think most people would agree that in the case of "Creating an ISO", if you use two different programs you aren't guaranteed to get ISO files that indentical.
It is also assumed that when "Ripping an ISO", if you use one program multiple times, every ISO you create should be identical.
Similarly it is assumed that when "Burning an ISO", if you use one program multiple times, every CD/DVD you create should be identical.
We also assume that if you use different programs to burn the same ISO, then the CD/DVDs you create should be identical.
What is not known for certain is what you get if you use two different programs to rip an ISO. In this instance we do not know for certain if the ISO files created are supposed to be identical or whether the ISO file format permits them to be different.
That being said however, even if two such ISO were not binary identical it is assumed that if they each each burned to CD/DVD, then the resulting CD/DVDs should be identical.
What we need is someone with the technical knowledge of the ISO file format and the way data is really burned to CD/DVDs to tell us one way or the other.
Offline
could we use quickpar as a (sort of "diff") test?
eg, make an iso using winiso (for instance)
make a par2 set
make an iso of the same cd, using cdrwin (for instance)
check the par2 set..
or would this "always" fail, eg if quickpar uses date/timestamps too?
Offline
"paulus":ba0utrqg wrote:
could we use quickpar as a (sort of "diff") test?[/quote:ba0utrqg]
You could, but it is a lot easier to just directly compare the two ISO files.
Offline
ahh ok, did you mean like a right-click->properties byte for byte check?
if so, yeah - i guess that would be quicker than verifying <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
Offline
Windows is supplied with a program called FC, but it does not have a GUI interface.
Instead you must run it from a command prompt.
You can use "FC /b {first file} {second file}" to do a binary comparison (or leave out the /b for text comparison).
Offline
Also you can make a MD5 check on both your iSO files to see if the MD5 sum is the same, however I dont think they are as in Peters example with 2 diff ZIP programs.
I think the best way to do it is burnin' the iSO images and pars to the CD/DVD, ofcourse you wont be able to play them in a CD/DVD player, but you can mount the iSOs with Daemon Tools and play them in WinAMP <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
Offline
"PeterBClements":3ug9a6gn wrote:
Windows is supplied with a program called FC, but it does not have a GUI interface.
Instead you must run it from a command prompt.
You can use "FC /b {first file} {second file}" to do a binary comparison (or leave out the /b for text comparison).[/quote:3ug9a6gn]
cool, i forgot about File compare <!-- s--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
Offline
"Mr.Usenet":1nll7jde wrote:
Also you can make a MD5 check on both your iSO files to see if the MD5 sum is the same, however I dont think they are as in Peters example with 2 diff ZIP programs.
[/quote:1nll7jde]
as first i was going to sao that as far as i know, sfv and MD5 are set standards, so im guessing that the iso (if identical) would have the same MD5 etc, but then again, thats what i initially thought about ISO - LOL so im not so sure now <!-- s--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
i'd trust quickpar though, so i'd rather wait it out and make a simple 1 block par2 set, since i trust it a lot more <!-- s--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
Offline
"paulus":247pvxgd wrote:
... as far as i know, sfv and MD5 are set standards, so im guessing that the iso (if identical) would have the same MD5 etc ...[/quote:247pvxgd]
SFV uses the CRC32 checksum algorithm which like the MD5 algorithm are well known standards.
The .SFV and .MD5 file formats on the other hand are NOT standardised.
There are in fact a number of different formats for these files and many utilities that read and write one version of the format, do not understand files created by other utilities.
QuickPar actually includes code that allows it to understand 2 different .SFV file formats, and 6 different .MD5 file formats.
Most utilities add comments to these files that includes the "current" date and time. This means that if you use the same utility twice in a row to create a .MD5 file from the same source files, the MD5 files will not be identical. If you do a text based comparison of the two files, you will of course see that the actual MD5 hash values stored in the two files are the same.
If you use .MD5 files (or any other similar file - including .SFV, .PAR, and .PAR2) to compare two source files, the only way to do it would be to created the checksum file from one of the source files, and then use that checksum file to verify the other source file.
NB Despite the fact that you have to run the FC utility from the command line, it will be faster than generating a checksum file and using that to verify.
NB Also, that when using a checksum file it is possible to get a false match of two files. i.e. two files that are actually different but have the same checksum. The probability is very small, but it has been known to happen. When doing a direct file comp, a false positive is not possible (unless there is a hardware fault on your computer).
Offline
QuickPar actually includes code that allows it to understand 2 different .SFV file formats, and 6 different .MD5 file formats[/quote:dpd1sa51]
thanks, i didnt know that. (or if i did, i most probably forgot) <!-- s--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
Offline