Re: Sony DRU-510A, cannot burn dvd's on Solaris9 x386
> >> >> This is definitely wrong!
> >>
> >> It is obvious that "INVALID ADDRESS FOR WRITE" is a possible
> >> result of a buffer underun.
>
> >Do I have to explain the difference between "buffer overruns" and
> >"buffer underruns?" I wrote "buffer *underruns* are denoted as depicted
> >in originating post." And what did orignating post say? "INVALID ADDRESS
> >FOR WRITE!"
>
> Well, slowly it seems that we become able to understand each other....
??? All I do repeat myself two-three times, so I don't experience it as
"we."
> Buffer overruns should never happen if the firmwar eof the drive is OK.
> Buffer full conditions only happen if you are in RAW mode and writing the LEAD IN
> of a CD and (with some drives) when the first DVD write is stalled in order
> to write the DVD TOC when in SAO mode.
This statement doesn't hold true, most notably "only" as in "Buffer full
conditions only happen ... in SAO mode" renders it incorrect. In most
cases host delivers data at rate higher than recording speed, meaning
that buffer overruns do take place *all the time* during recording, not
only when lead-in is recorded in DAO mode (it's DAO, not SAO!). Some
units (most notably Pioneer) signal buffer overruns with "LONG WRITE IN
PROGRESS" in *all* [sequential] recording modes, and they do so *both*
in the beginning of *and during* the recording process. Other units
(most DVD+ ones) simply keep bus monopolized till buffer memory is
available to meet the request (but it doesn't mean that buffer overrun
condition didn't take place).
> From the MMC standard, the observed problem may only occur in restricted
> overwrite mode in case the write instruction is not properly alligned.
"INVALID ADDRESS FOR WRITE" is defined and meaningful for *all* DVD
recording strategies except DVD+RW. For *all* sequential modes, i.e.
DVD+R, DVD-R[W] Incremental and DVD-R[W] DAO, the code in question is
[specified to be] returned whenever LBA in CDB does not coincide with
"next writable address" for an open track.
> I cannot see that Invalid address for write may happen with linear DVD
> writing execept when you need to abort the write.
I can't make sense out of this sentence... Some would say that I know
too little about it, but the only way I can interpret it as if the only
way to gracefully abort the recording was to provoke WRITE command to
return "INVALID ADDRESS FOR WRITE" code. And the latter is simply not
true. Well, I didn't explicitly checked it in DAO, but I can tell from
my own experience that in *all* other modes WRITE command returning
"INVALID ADDRESS FOR WRITE" does *not* mean that recording was aborted
and/or can't be resumed.
> >I can't remember myself saying that DAO is worse. I said that other
> >modes, both non-DAO DVD- and DVD+ ones, are more *practical*, yet
> >provide for *adequate* compatibility with legacy DVD-ROM. In addition I
> >maintain that DVD+ is more practical/easier to deploy than DVD-. My
> >standpoint is and has always been that any technology deserve a trial
> >and noone should jump to conclusions before that actually give it a real
> >try.
>
> Well I did try DVD+ and I still have the impression that it is worse than
> DVD-.
I have no problem with statement as "I have the impression that DVD+ is
worse than DVD-," as long as it implies "but that should not discourage
you from making up your own mind." But I can't accept calling DVD+
alliance for bunch of liars, as you did at several occasions, at least
because it *explicitly* discourages people from making their own
opinion. A.
Reply to: