sas2000 Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIGHTNING UK! Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Are you sure the resulting image was only 90mb? What does the calculated size come out to? There's a lot of slack space involved with burning little files. ie. 2049 bytes of file data is 2 sectors (4096 bytes). 90 meg of pure image file data would of course fit in a 128 meg buffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas2000 Posted May 17, 2009 Author Share Posted May 17, 2009 Are you sure the resulting image was only 90mb? What does the calculated size come out to? There's a lot of slack space involved with burning little files. ie. 2049 bytes of file data is 2 sectors (4096 bytes). 90 meg of pure image file data would of course fit in a 128 meg buffer. You're absolutely right, there's a lot of slack space involved : Size of the directory 85,8 MB (90.011.590 bytes) Size of the directory on disk 928 MB (973.651.968 bytes) and i created and Iso of the same directory --> Test.iso = 281 MB (295.108.608 bytes) Btw with this memory : Total Physical Memory: 1.048.048 KB - Available: 701.908 KB And without using other programs when ImgBurn is burning, is it possible/safe to assing an I/O Buffer of 256Mb instead of 128Mb, to try to avoid buffer underruns when burning directories with small files (obviously much less files than in the test). Thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIGHTNING UK! Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 It's safe to use any amount you want to... so long as the OS doesn't error out when ImgBurn tries to allocate it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts