lavvu Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Hi guys, I'm new here so please excuse me if this is a newbie question. The problem is, when I try to write a single image file with multiple recorders (I have two drives), it still burns with only a single drive at once. That is to say, when I add the image file two times and use the "set current device" -feature to assign them to different recorders and insert blanks into both, it first burns with the first recorder, and once that it finished it starts with the second. Any way to fix this? Unfortunately I do not have the program log, I forgot to save it before quitting. If that is a problem I can ofcourse save one next time. Edited June 10, 2009 by lavvu
LIGHTNING UK! Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 It's not designed to burn them simultaneously.
lavvu Posted June 10, 2009 Author Posted June 10, 2009 I understand...well, it does seem to work using multiple instances of imgburn (at least with ISO --> cd burning, haven't tried with dvd yet). So maybe here could be some room for a feature request
mmalves Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 People asked for it many times already and LUK has no interest in doing that.
lavvu Posted June 11, 2009 Author Posted June 11, 2009 Right, well I guess I'll have to use Nero instead. Thanks anyway for the info
volvofl10 Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 you can use multiple instances of ImgBurn , but you need a POWERFULL PC to do this, and if your drawing the one image more than once at a time, you will probably cause a dataflow bottleneck from the hard drive . Not sure how nero does it, but the transfer of large data from 1 x hdd is the problem, especially if the processer happens to try and read the same file twice at the same time
lavvu Posted June 13, 2009 Author Posted June 13, 2009 I made some tests. It appears that if the burns are executed even a little adjacent to each other, that is to say, if there is even some seconds' gap between starting times, the buffers will continuously run out and the burning process will be slow. However, if the burns are executed absolutely simulatenously, then it works just fine with 100% buffer all the time. It appears that if the image file needs to be read from only one point at a time, the number of drives burning the data is not so important. That is to say, there would not be any more bottleneck concerning the hard drive than there usually is with a single burn. So, that's the trick how Nero does it. I'm sorry to hear that this will not be implemented in Imgburn, since this is such a great software in every other aspect.
LIGHTNING UK! Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 I'm sure nero would only be reading the file once and then just feed each burner from its internal cache.
Recommended Posts