|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
mionica 
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: Apr. 2005
|
 |
Posted on: May 31 2006,13:34 |
|
   |
I was wondering if it were possible to specify the (LBA) order in which the files be added to an .ISO image.
The perfect implementation would allow me (the user) to click Tools > Export image layout (when preparing to re-create an image) and, respectively, Tools > Import image layout (when re-creating it from the source - evetually updated - files).
This may come as an extremely useful extension with respect to the "editing" of .ISOs containing lots of duplicate (optimized) files, as is the case of one-disk-multipe-WinXPs images.
While outputing the .layout, you'd simply have to dump a list of all the files inside the image, sorted by LBA (ascending). When importing a .layout, you'd simply try to add the files to the image in exactly the same order, and leave all files unlisted in the .layout at the end.
Also, .layout's should override the current 'file priority' schema in UltraISO (which is too simplistic to be practically useful).
For better understanding of my suggestion, take the following example:
Let's suppose I have a 3-in-1 boot CD with three editions of WinXP (SP2, SP2+updates, SP2+updates+MCE look); the boot folders are, respectively, /XPSP, /XPSU and /XPSM, with the source folders /WINXP/SP2, /WINXP/SP2-U and /WINXP/SP2-UMCE.
To prevent unnecessary disk seeking at boot, I have grouped the boot files to the beginning of the image (lower LBAs).
An exported .layout of such a disk would look like QUOTE XPSU/WMILIB.SY_
XPUM/WMILIB.SY_
WINXP/SP2-U/WMILIB.SY_
WINXP/SP2-UMCE/WMILIB.SY_
XPSP/VIDEOPRT.SY_
XPUM/VIDEOPRT.SY_
XPSU/VIDEOPRT.SY_
WINXP/SP2/VIDEOPRT.SY_
WINXP/SP2-U/VIDEOPRT.SY_
WINXP/SP2-UMCE/VIDEOPRT.SY_
...
XPSP/WMILIB.SY_
WINXP/SP2/WMILIB.SY_
...
I assume you get the picture.
--
The current approach I use is creating the image using CDIMAGE, with layout optimization, all the files hardlinked to /I386 and renamed according to my desired layout, then using UltraISO to remove that 'I386' folder.
Basically, this sucks. First, because CDimage won't let me use Joliet when ordering by filenames in I386; second, because when I remove that I386 folder with UltraISO, it creates an unnecessary gap in my image.
I'm a great fan of UltraISO, and it would be great if I had to resort to using other tools (mkisofs / cdimage) as rarely as possible.
Regards,
Mircea.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
xoben
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 2200
Joined: Nov. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 01 2006,19:28 |
|
 |
Thanks Mircea for your suggestion.
At present, UltraISO supports 'Priority' instead of 'sort list':
1) For GUI operation, right click on a file or folder, then change 'Priority' to 0-9
2) For command-line, you can use '-p' parameter to define priority of files and folders
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
t1470258
Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: Nov. 2004
|
|
Posted on: May 09 2007,17:11 |
|
|
I'd like to add my bits to 'Priority' within UltraISO since this's the only topic about it...
1) For Priority to even work, you must disable 'optimize' option of the ISO image. Because optimization re-orders files ignoring your custom priority. This is a live-and-learn experience where neither UltraISO Help nor forum explains about...
2) You must carefully assign priorities within UltraISO because you have only one shot before saving. When you saved your ISO image, UltraISO reverts all assigned priorities back to 0 while preserving their priority structure within ISO LBA. But this is a bug since if you have prioritized 50 files, saved your image, then decide to change the priority of only 1 file... you have to do all over again for the other 49...
3) High priority files (9) are placed within inner tracks (low LBA) = slower yet safer for damages, and low priority files (0) are place within outer tracks (high LBA) = faster yet unsafer. So one should decide about priority based on these factors... BTW Nero works vice versa.
Hope these will help... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
