Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
randello

Constant Buffer Underruns with 1.2.0.0

Recommended Posts

When I burn an image with 1.2.0.0 I get constant buffer underruns. The buffer level keeps going up and down throughout the burn. When I uninstall the new version and put back 1.1.0.0 I have NO problems. I can't understand this. I have a P4 1.5 with 512 ram. Is this a bug????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a windows caching problem.

 

Seems windows doesn't cache me reading in the 4gb file if I read in 64k chunks. As I switched to 256k (to hopefully speed things up!), it now caches everything and eats all your memory.

 

This was reported lastweek sometime and fixed almost immediately.

 

Get 1.2.1.0 when I release it and you'll be fine.

 

Cheers for reporting it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine does the samething. With 1.1.0.0 I could burn and just surf the web at the same time no problem. With this version I have now (1.2.0.0), when I'm burning, thats the only thing I can do. I can click the "Start" button and it doesn't come up until about 7 seconds later. Looking forward to the next version. :)

Edited by jmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a windows caching problem.

 

Seems windows doesn't cache me reading in the 4gb file if I read in 64k chunks. As I switched to 256k (to hopefully speed things up!), it now caches everything and eats all your memory.

 

This was reported lastweek sometime and fixed almost immediately.

 

Get 1.2.1.0 when I release it and you'll be fine.

 

Cheers for reporting it though.

maybe you can put an option for us to choose the transfer rate. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jmet,

 

I expect that delay is due to the disc spinning up or something. The file transfer rate problem only comes into play during the actual burn...not before it, after it etc. Those other functions do things differently.

 

dirio49,

 

Nah, it'll be fixed back on 64k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're then limited to reading in the exact sector sizes of the hdd (from what the MSDN stuff says).

 

Due to some weirdo image files that's not really an option.

 

It was fine on 64k before so I'll just put it back to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LUK....great product.....i too updated to 1.2.0.0....and went back to the previous version....just because of problems already mentioned.....i'll know everything will eventually be sorted out....thanks once again for all your ideas....in the past...in the present...and in the future....will paypal a donation soon for your efforts....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to be rude, but when is the version without the caching problem expected for release? :pray: I really love the new options in this version so much that I do not want to install the older version again. This was the only problem I noticed almost instantly. Respect to Lightning UK for putting so much effort in the program :thumbsup:

Edited by killjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back to 1.1.0.0 and everything is great. I'll just wait for the release of 1.2.1.0 . :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today I've added a sector viewer... now I'm about to add a '/IBG' CLI argument as per r0lZ request.

 

THEN I'm done ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well today I've added a sector viewer... now I'm about to add a '/IBG' CLI argument as per r0lZ request.

 

THEN I'm done ;)

No sir, you can't quit! Keep on working overtime! =))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't noticed this issue, been surfing, burning and printing all weekend with no probs, but I have a fair amount of memory if that helps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't noticed this issue, been surfing, burning and printing all weekend with no probs, but I have a fair amount of memory if that helps?

 

Yep, I do have an older system with 512 MB RAM. I think you have more, haven't you? With big specs you probably do not notice the problem at all ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't noticed this issue, been surfing, burning and printing all weekend with no probs, but I have a fair amount of memory if that helps?

 

Yes, I think a lot of memory helps, but I don't think you need much to avoid issues. I had avoided using 1.2.0.0 until recently because I saw the bug reports cropping up. Normally I never have an image on the same drive (or even the same IDE channel - I have boot drive on primary IDE, others on Promise Ultra controller), so I doubt that I'd see an underrun from competing with the windows swap file anyway. I happen to current have 1.5GB of DDR RAM on my 2.66 GHz P4 (non-hyper threading) computer. I decided to give 1.2.0.0 a try because I wanted to get the verify curve on the DVDInfo Pro graphs. Anyway, I have NO issues with either the program or device cache emptying on me, and all works fine.

 

I decied to open task manager before and during burning, and it looks like ImgBurn 1.2.0.0 only uses about 12 MB of memory (in the process window) before burning and only about 33 MB during burning. I believe it was about the same with 1.1.0.0. I also switched to the performance tab of task manger during the burn and I don't see any indication that large amounts of physical OR virtual memory are being used to create a cache for the whole image.

 

This is on Windows XP Home SP2. I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but all seems well with 1.2.0.0 for me....no cache issues evident anywhere.

 

What is it supposed to look like in task manager when all the memory disappaears during a burn? Does the available phyisical memory get consumed to leave 0 available as shown in the perofrmance tab? Mine stayed at about 1 GB free during the burn of a 4.3 GB single layer image...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the 'Available' counter in the 'Physical Memory (K)' box on the 'Performance' tab showed a drop in value every second that matched the write speed of my burner.

 

Once I'd noticed this pattern I didn't bother to keep an eye on it right until the end. What I did see was that it took me down from about 1.2gb free to 400mb. I may have gone beyond that, I don't know.

Switched back to 64k transfers and it wasn't even noticable after that.

 

As it's not actually ImgBurn using the memory, memory for the ImgBurn.exe process stayed at 30 odd MB as normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, the 'Available' counter in the 'Physical Memory (K)' box on the 'Performance' tab showed a drop in value every second that matched the write speed of my burner.

 

Once I'd noticed this pattern I didn't bother to keep an eye on it right until the end. What I did see was that it took me down from about 1.2gb free to 400mb. I may have gone beyond that, I don't know.

Switched back to 64k transfers and it wasn't even noticable after that.

 

As it's not actually ImgBurn using the memory, memory for the ImgBurn.exe process stayed at 30 odd MB as normal.

 

Strange, I didn't seem to see ANY decrease during burning in the performance tab, and definitely not by that much even when the burn started! Hmmm, perhaps it depends on the version of Windows (I'm using XP Home SP2 with all critical updates), and possible differences in memory management?

Edited by fordman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the 'Available' counter in the 'Physical Memory (K)' box on the 'Performance' tab showed a drop in value every second that matched the write speed of my burner.

 

Once I'd noticed this pattern I didn't bother to keep an eye on it right until the end. What I did see was that it took me down from about 1.2gb free to 400mb. I may have gone beyond that, I don't know.

Switched back to 64k transfers and it wasn't even noticable after that.

 

As it's not actually ImgBurn using the memory, memory for the ImgBurn.exe process stayed at 30 odd MB as normal.

 

Strange, I didn't seem to see ANY decrease during burning in the performance tab, and definitely not by that much even when the burn started! Hmmm, perhaps it depends on the version of Windows (I'm using XP Home SP2 with all critical updates), and possible differences in memory management?

 

Maybe so, I am wondering what amount of RAM you have?

Lightning UK, what about that fix you would release for this issue? I thought a new version would be released two days ago (correct me if I am mistaken).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when we're finished testing it im sure he will release it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when we're finished testing it im sure he will release it

 

Done testing what? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the 'Available' counter in the 'Physical Memory (K)' box on the 'Performance' tab showed a drop in value every second that matched the write speed of my burner.

 

Once I'd noticed this pattern I didn't bother to keep an eye on it right until the end. What I did see was that it took me down from about 1.2gb free to 400mb. I may have gone beyond that, I don't know.

Switched back to 64k transfers and it wasn't even noticable after that.

 

As it's not actually ImgBurn using the memory, memory for the ImgBurn.exe process stayed at 30 odd MB as normal.

 

Strange, I didn't seem to see ANY decrease during burning in the performance tab, and definitely not by that much even when the burn started! Hmmm, perhaps it depends on the version of Windows (I'm using XP Home SP2 with all critical updates), and possible differences in memory management?

 

Maybe so, I am wondering what amount of RAM you have?

 

 

I have 1.5 GB of RAM currently on a Medion (MSI motherboard) computer with a non-hyperthreading 2.66 Ghz P4.

Share this post


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

×

Important Information

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