chewy Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 how do you ever end up with something like this? Destination Device: [3:0:0] _NEC DVD_RW ND-4551A 1-07 (F:) (ATA)
Shamus_McFartfinger Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Yeah. It's a mystery. I 18:51:14 ImgBurn Version 1.1.0.5 Beta started! I 18:51:14 Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional (5.0, Build 2195 : Service Pack 4) I 18:51:14 Initialising SPTI... I 18:51:14 Searching for SCSI / ATAPI devices... I 18:51:14 Found 1 CD-ROM and 1 DVD?RW! I 18:52:04 Operation Started! I 18:52:04 Source File: K:\__iso\FUTURAMA_DISC_3.ISO I 18:52:04 Source File Sectors: 2,169,681 (MODE1/2048) I 18:52:04 Source File Size: 4,443,506,688 bytes I 18:52:04 Source File Implementation Identifier: DVD Shrink I 18:52:04 Destination Device: [3:3:0] PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-109 1.58 (F:) (ATA) I 18:52:04 Destination Media Type: DVD-R (Disc ID: RITEKG05) (Speeds: 4x, 6x, 8x, 12x) I 18:52:04 Destination Media Sectors: 2,298,496 I 18:52:04 Write Mode: DVD I 18:52:04 Write Type: DAO I 18:52:04 Write Speed: MAX I 18:52:04 Link Size: Auto I 18:52:04 Test Mode: No I 18:52:04 BURN-Proof: Enabled I 18:52:04 Filling Buffer... I 18:52:11 Writing LeadIn... I 18:52:32 Writing Image... I 19:05:43 Synchronising Cache... I 19:05:57 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:13:52 I 19:05:57 Average Write Rate: 5,492 KB/s (4.0x) - Maximum Write Rate: 15,443 KB/s (11.2x)
Shamus_McFartfinger Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Hint: There's also SATA drives in the machine this log was taken from.
chewy Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) Hint: There's also SATA drives in the machine this log was taken from. I only have 4 boxes with sata raid chips and my burners are on channels 0 and 1 2 of the boxes have dual sata and dual pata, but they are turned off in bios Edited January 21, 2006 by chewy
chewy Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 I 19:05:57 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:13:52I 19:05:57 Average Write Rate: 5,492 KB/s (4.0x) - Maximum Write Rate: 15,443 KB/s (11.2x) and for a 12x burn that's way too long indicating problematic ide drivers?
LIGHTNING UK! Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 lol that's a very open ended question chewy! It's kinda hard to tell what you were asking for exactly! If you're on about the SCSI ID address (the [x:x:x] one), yeah, just add some more controllers into your machine! As for the speed thing, no, that doesn't indicate anything to do with drivers. You've got a max of 12 and average of 4. To me it looks like it stepped up and stepped down again. Without seeing the write speed graph, it's hard to say - but that's what the graph is there for. That time is about right for a 4x burn though.
chewy Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 lol that's a very open ended question chewy! It's kinda hard to tell what you were asking for exactly! If you're on about the SCSI ID address (the [x:x:x] one), yeah, just add some more controllers into your machine! As for the speed thing, no, that doesn't indicate anything to do with drivers. You've got a max of 12 and average of 4. To me it looks like it stepped up and stepped down again. Without seeing the write speed graph, it's hard to say - but that's what the graph is there for. That time is about right for a 4x burn though. I had the same problem with burn times when i had nvida ide drivers installed, of course it was complicated by sil 3112 serial drivers that were also bad(damn asus) Now shamus is using a fairly recent well known burner with a cruddy but well known mid, If ImgBurn tells the pioneer to write at 12x why would the average write speed be 4x? Graph or no graph, simple math.
LIGHTNING UK! Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I dunno but you can't instantly blame the drivers. There's obviously no real speed issue or it would never have reached 12x in the first place. People blame Nvidia and Intel drivers way too much. Who do you think made the first ones that ship with XP or whatever?! Microsoft aren't going to have done it, it's not their place to. Yes ok, their first few releases may have not been so good but XP has been around for years now and I doubt the drivers still really have problems. Just because they were bad 3 years ago doesn't mean they'll still be bad today. I run Intels latest chipset + ide/sata drivers (have done forever!) and don't have any problems. Same goes for my AMD machine that's running the Nvidia NForce 4 drivers. That said, it doesn't seem to have installed the PATA side of the 'enhanced' drivers. Those are still registering as standard. The graph is handy because it can help show the pattern. It could be a perfect stepdown, maybe shamus's G05s aren't up to much, who knows. The WOPC on the pioneer is also pretty aggressive and checks discs more frequently than any other drive I've seen.
chewy Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) That said, it doesn't seem to have installed the PATA side of the 'enhanced' drivers. Those are still registering as standard. that part is the key It seems most of the problems come with outdated drivers being installed onto XP sp2 Edited January 21, 2006 by chewy
chewy Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 it would be very interesting to see a log of good media burn from that machine
Shamus_McFartfinger Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I 19:05:57 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:13:52I 19:05:57 Average Write Rate: 5,492 KB/s (4.0x) - Maximum Write Rate: 15,443 KB/s (11.2x) and for a 12x burn that's way too long indicating problematic ide drivers? Nope. It's pretty good actually. K:\ drive is a shared RAID drive I dump my ISOs onto for burning. When I get a few on there I burn them using 4 machines at once. So... to get 4x across a network while 3 other machines are also requesting large amounts of data from the same drive is pretty good. I do it this way mainly because each machine has different hardware, device drivers, OS and all that other crap that may be buggy. The more things ImgBurn can be tested on, the more reliable Lightning's program will be.
chewy Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) corn warned about your network, a 4x burn is pretty good on a 100 base, really need a gigbit Edited January 21, 2006 by chewy
LIGHTNING UK! Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 lol so that's 4x over a network! making about 22mb/s if you're doing 4 of them at once. I don't think that's too bad at all.
chewy Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 the head movement on the stripe must be something else
Shamus_McFartfinger Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 corn warned about your network, a 4x burn is pretty good on a 100 base, really need a gigbit It is gigabit. There's so much crap plugged into the network that I need it.
Shamus_McFartfinger Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 the head movement on the stripe must be something else That's why I use a striped raid set.
Shamus_McFartfinger Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 lol so that's 4x over a network! making about 22mb/s if you're doing 4 of them at once. I don't think that's too bad at all. Yeah. I'd like it faster though. Did you have any luck increasing the packet size (not packet volume) over your network?
LIGHTNING UK! Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I don't think the network is the problem here. Copying files over my lan gives me about 40 - 45mb/s. I think reading 4 different images off your raid set is just too much random accessing to give you anything higher than ~20mb/s
Shamus_McFartfinger Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Agreed. BTW, a couple of days ago one machine went from a 20MB/sec to 10MB/sec with no changes to drivers, hardware or anything else and has stayed there. Fooking thing. It's one of those Marvel Yukon type thingies on the m/board. Ever had one only partially die before?
Recommended Posts