Jump to content
ocrana

ISO9660 long paths

Recommended Posts

Hi,

in the advanced settings of ISO9660 there is a checkbox "Allow More Than 255 Characters In Path" 

I do not understand exact the rule behind. Is this the complete path on disk like "\folder1\folder2 \file1.zip" or 255 chars of each path elements like "folder1" or "folder2"?

What is the max length of a file path on disk with all folders? 

Thanks

 

BTW_ ImgBurn is great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 255 characters for the total path, which, I think, also includes the file name itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a path length of max 1024 bytes in the tables for ISO9660? And Isn't ISO9660 Level3 with max 207 Chars with each path and file name node?

This is why this 255 chars option / rule is not really clear for me. But in all Iam not an expert so maybe I missunderstand something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, dbminter said:

It's 255 characters for the total path, which, I think, also includes the file name itself.

First I thought this 255 Path issue will activate RockRidge bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This document is very confusing. Should notz exceed a depth of 8 directories. A directory should not exceed the descriptor with a length of 31.

31*8 = 248....where is the place for  8.3 (11) file name?

However, if I check the option to allow filepath more than 255 chars, what is the max. Path length then? And if I activate this option, the filename length limit is still active? like 207 with ISO Level 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing to say you have to maximise on the directory name length. :)

You've a directory name length limit, a file name length limit and an overall path limit.

All other limits are still in place if you modify the 'Allow more than 255 characters in path' option.

That option simply tells ImgBurn not to check for paths that might exceed that limit.

Rather than mess around with ISO9660 options, why not just use a modern file system like UDF? Are you absolutely limited to using ISO9660 for something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.