Re: dvd multi-session
the way i understand it, growisofs only formats areas of the media that
are needed for the data to be written. and then _grows_ the isofs as new
data is appended.
is there anyway to have growisofs format the entire media as an iso9660
filesystem? if so, will i be able to mount it read/write? essentially
treating it as a hard drive. or is this dvd-ram technology?
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 12:30, Andy Polyakov wrote:
> > i am now able to write in multiple sessions. i had to do a blank=all
> > using cdrecord-prodvd to do it.
>
> You can as well use dvd+rw-format -blank=full to apply full blanking
> procedure to DVD-RW media. I personally actually recommend to format for
> Restricted Overwrite instead. It's simply more practical:
>
> - no full blanking is required if you want to reuse media;
> - ISO9660 volume is grown within single session, no multi-border support
> is required for playback in legacy DVD-ROM units;
> - no media capacity is spilled on border-out/-ins;
>
> > but it looks like both sessions need to be an isofs.
>
> Why do you think it's called grow*iso*fs:-)
>
> > now i am trying to write multiple tar archives to the dvd media as multi
> > session and it is failing.
>
> Even if you manage to put one tar per session, how would you access the
> second tar? If you want to "tar-format" DVD media, multi-sessioning is
> not an option, isofs is the *only* working option for multi-sessioning.
>
> > my first command:
> > # tar cvf - /tmp | growisofs -Z /dev/scd0=/dev/fd/0
> > works great, exactly what i hoped for. i am able to get the data back
> > from the media using:
> > # readcd dev=0,0,0 f=tarpipe | tar -tvf tarpipe
>
> What's wrong with 'tar tvf /dev/scd0'?
>
> > my second command and its output:
> > # tar cvf - /opt | growisofs -M /dev/scd0=/dev/fd/0
> > :-( /dev/scd0 doesn't look like isofs...
> >
> > does this imply that there has to be an isofs on the disc to append to
> > it?
>
> Yes. Once again, isofs is the *only* working option for multi-sessiong.
> Well, it's not 100% true, but it's the only *practical* option and the
> only one I'm ready to discuss:-)
>
> > growisofs did not seem to care that the first image i wrote was not
> > isofs
>
> No, it didn't and it's intentional. A.
Reply to: