File size ON the CD vs. File size OFF the CD

[cycledick]

If I copy all the files from a CD (850 seperate files) to my hard drive, the total size goes from 460MB to 950MB! My problem is I now want to write it back to a CD and can't.

From what I've been able to figure out, the increase is size is due to each file using more disk space than it actually NEEDS because of the minimum cluster size on the drive.

Anyone know of a way to get it back on to a CD while not writing all that "extra" space the hard drive needs to store files? I didn't create an ISO image, I just copied the files to the drive.

Thanks in advance.

 

[vacunita]

Use a program that can copy CD's. such as Nero, or Roxio. you can then just tell it to copy, and it will do the rest.

----------------------------------
Ignorance is not necessarily Bliss, case in point:
Unknown has caused an Unknown Error on Unknown and must be shutdown to prevent damage to Unknown.

 

[cycledick]

A program that copies the files, such as Roxio which is what I was using, wants to copy all 950MB worth, which will not fit on to a CD. The size of the CD before I copied the files to my hard drive was 460MB. AFTER I copied the files to my hard drive the size of all the files was 950MB. So, when I want to write that to a CD, it wants to write 950MB, not 460MB. I have 700MB CD-R disks. 950MB won't fit on to 700MB disks. I don't have the original disk anymore so I can't just copy the actual CD.

 

[BadBigBen]

Four ways to deal with this, at least that is what I am thinking without knowing the file structure and the files themselves...

1. use a program such as UltraISO and create a compressed ISO files and then burn it with UltraISO... (not tested but could work)...

2. use a different media, e.g. instead of a CD use a DVD...

3. copy the files to an external USB drive, with a different cluster size (512k instead of 4096k) and burn from there...

4. pre-compress them using WinZIP, WinRAR or WinACE, and then burn them...

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

 

[vacunita]

No,
My point is don't copy the files from the CD to your hard drive, Roxio has something called Disc Copier.

You point the Disc Copier to the drive the CD is in, it then creates an image of the CD onto a new one

There is no need to actually copy anything to your hard drive. Roxio does it all by itself.

If you don't have the original CD handy anymore, then yes, maybe copying onto a DVD maybe a better choice.

Or trying a larger capacity CD such as an 870MB CD. if your writer can write onto those types of CDs.



----------------------------------
Ignorance is not necessarily Bliss, case in point:
Unknown has caused an Unknown Error on Unknown and must be shutdown to prevent damage to Unknown.

 

[Freestone]

Something seems amiss here...using Nero I have played with various combinations of number of files and byte counts. In every case the number of bytes used on the hard drive exceeded the number of bytes Nero says it will burn due to slack space. Nero seems smart enough to know that it won't burn the slack space. Is Roxio braindead?

 

[linney]

Cluster Size
This is the smallest amount of hard disk space a file can occupy. Floppies have a cluster size of 512 bytes and hard disks can have a cluster size ranging from 1 kilobyte to 16 kilobytes (sometimes even more). The larger the partition, the larger the cluster size. See Slack Space.

Slack Space
The amount of disk space that is wasted by having a large cluster size. For example, if a 300-byte file is stored on a disk with a cluster size of 1,024 bytes, there will be 724 bytes of slack space that can't be used for any other files.


How to Locate and Correct Disk Space Problems on NTFS Volumes in Windows XP(Q315668)

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q315/6/68.asp

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;315688&FR=1&PA=1&SD=HSCH

The Default Cluster Size for the NTFS and FAT File Systems(Q314878)

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q314/8/78.asp

Files Are Larger on FAT Partitions(Q101267)

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q101/2/67.asp

 

[cdogg]

cycle,
I agree with Freestone here that something is just not right here. Even with wasted slack space, there's no way it would cause a handful of files to almost double in size. Also, the slack space only applies to bits and pieces of a large file, usually just the last cluster if the file is stored in straight line (sequentially). For example if you had a large file (say 50MB), the first 99.9% of that file should not have any slack space. Only the last cluster used to store the end of the file will have any slack space (which we know will be a small number of KB).

Now, heavy fragmentation on a hard drive can cause more slack space in large files, because they are being split up. But even then, the difference is minimal.

I would suggest that when you first copied the contents of the original CD onto the hard drive, the size was nearly identical to the CD. Something must have changed with one or more of the files, or something was added to the folder that you are not aware of. Unless you have the original CD, I don't see how you can be 100% positive either way.


~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[cycledick]

I can understand everyone's confusion. It doesn't make sense to me either. But, I've taken a similar CD (same software, different version) and just copied the files from the CD to my hard drive and size again doubles!

My understanding of the cluster issue is that the minimum cluster size is per file. So, the more files one has, there more wasted space there is. Honestly, not that familiar with it, which is why I'm asking.

I degrag my hard drive on a regular basis, so it's not bad at all. This is one of those things I'd like to understand for next time. I've already ordered another copy of the disk in question, but I'm sure it will come up again.

What is really odd, is that if I check the properties of the CD-rom drive with the disk in it, the size says 460MB. If I explore the CD-ROM, highlight all the files, then go to properties, it says the size of all the files is 950MB! Is that weird or what?! I was trying to figure out if they were compressed on the CD and when I explore them Windows is automatically opening the compressed files and showing them to me as if they weren't compressed. But, I can't really find any evidence that it's doing that.

 

[linney]

Check the properties of individual files before and after the copy. Is this a Setup CD? If so look at any file on the CD with and extension ending in underscore, i.e. .12_ or ab_, and compare the name of it and size when copied to your hard drive. Does it still have the underscore or is it plain old .123 or .abc?

I was going to mention the following earlier but I can't see how it can apply to your circumstances.

This is from notes on the Copy command in the Recovery Console.

"Copy copies one file to a target location. By default, the target cannot be removable media and you cannot use wildcards. Copying a compressed file from the Windows 2000 Setup CD-ROM automatically decompresses the file".

How to install and use the Recovery Console in Windows XP

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307654&FR=1&PA=1&SD=HSCH

"Extracting Files from the Operating System CD"
Windows XP Professional Resource Kit
System Files Reference

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457124.aspx

 

[cycledick]

I have gone through each file (there are a couple dozen directories, but there is really only one that has all the files in it) and other than the previously mention idiosyncrasy about the size of the files when I check the properties of the disk, versus the contents of the disk, there is no difference in file names. Each file size on the HD is the same as the one on the CD when I check them individually.

Even though it’s not a Windows Setup disk, it is a setup disk. I mentioned that I thought Windows might be showing me the uncompressed version of the files when I view them in Explorer and I think that MS link about Windows decompressing files when copied might support the theory. They certainly don’t appear to be compressed files, but size doesn’t lie I guess. I even checked them in a DOS window and they still show the same size. I ran out of ideas.

I guess the mystery will remain. Weird.

 

[2ffat]

What is your file system: FAT32, NTFS, ?????



James P. Cottingham
-----------------------------------------
^{I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!}

 

[cdogg]

From the updated information you gave us, such as the properties of the CD showing a different size than the properties of its files/folders, I'm willing to bet that you are falling victim here to one of the classic forms of copy protection.

This link can help explain that in more detail:

http://www.lacoj.com/resource-2.html#S2-4-1

A simple and commonly seen technique is to increase the length of several files on the CD so that they appear to be hundreds of megabytes long. This is accomplished by setting the file length in the disc image to be much larger than it really is. The file actually overlaps with many other files. So long as the application knows the true file length, the software will work fine. If the user tries to copy the files onto their hard drive, or do a file-by-file disc copy, the attempt will fail because the CD will appear to hold a few GB of data. (In practice this doesn't foil pirates, because they always do image copies. And, no, none of the standard software provides a way to create such discs.)

So at least one of the file sizes have been altered in the disc image's TOC (table of contents). Even though it is much smaller on the CD, Windows doesn't know any better when you copy it to the hard drive and allocates a lot more space to the file(s).

However, if you were to do a raw data copy of a disc (something that Roxio and Nero support), the file size information is ignored. Instead, bit for bit is copied from the source CD to the destination making it an easy workaround.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[cycledick]

I'm using XP Pro, NTFS.

cdogg, that is very interesting about the copyright protection. I never would have gone there. That would make more sense. But, the biggest file (after copying) is only 68MB. Is it possible that all the files are twice as big as they actually are, but still work?

 

[cdogg]

Yes, quite a few files can be part of the copy protection scheme. 500MB is a lot of ground to cover when the biggest file is only 68MB, but it's still possible when there are a lot of files in play. I wouldn't rule that out as a possibility.


~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.