Hi,
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The data needed to identify a specific UDF session does not
> fit into 32 sectors.
For now the trick is explicitely restricted to
ISO 9660 images (i.e. with Volume Descriptors as
of ECMA-119).
If libisofs ever supports UDF and especially the
Bridge Format which is ve
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> me:
> > > So with a BD-R +POW with first ISO-session written
> > > with 32 sector offset and LBA-0-patching one would
> > > get a Table Of Content as follows:
> Joerg Schilling:
> > As I mentioned before, 2 sectors is not enough.
>
> I assume
Hi,
me:
> > So with a BD-R +POW with first ISO-session written
> > with 32 sector offset and LBA-0-patching one would
> > get a Table Of Content as follows:
Joerg Schilling:
> As I mentioned before, 2 sectors is not enough.
I assume you meant 32, not "2".
Ok. But what data other than the first 3
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> me:
> > > "A SRM disc with POW shall be initialized by
> > > the formatting process as a single session disc with
> > > a single Logical Track."
> Andy Polyakov:
> > It only says how it should be *initially* formatted,
> > but says nothing ab
I'm trying not to throw away *too* many of
these darn expensive discs.
Hey. Your boss could afford a BD burner two
years ago ! It must have cost a little fortune. ;)
That may be, but it is still painful to me to be tossing these babies in
the rubbish bin! :'(
Matt Schulte
Commtech, Inc.
Voi
Hi,
me:
> > "A SRM disc with POW shall be initialized by
> > the formatting process as a single session disc with
> > a single Logical Track."
Andy Polyakov:
> It only says how it should be *initially* formatted,
> but says nothing about that it shall stay that way for eternity.
Ahum. Sounds re
SRM+POW recordings are *not*. SRM+POW recordings are
multi-track, but not multi-session. Meaning that even multi-session aware OS
will look for volume descriptor at LBA#16 for SRM+POW recording.
[...]
I leave session open in SRM+POW
[...]
appropriate to refer to recording as "increment", not "sess
Hi,
> This is a bad advise as it will not work with UDF enabled.
Good point. growisofs should watch out for
that mkisofs option before deciding to do
the 32 sector life saver offset.
> BTW: The reason why I call the "multi-session" method used by growisofs
> a dirty trick is because it destroy
Hi,
> SRM+POW recordings are *not*. SRM+POW recordings are
> multi-track, but not multi-session. Meaning that even multi-session aware OS
> will look for volume descriptor at LBA#16 for SRM+POW recording.
> [...]
> I leave session open in SRM+POW
> [...]
> appropriate to refer to recording as "inc
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you leave the track open ?
> I assumed you fork a new track, write the
> session, use POW to patch LBA 0 to 31 and
> then close the track.
> (I did not examine growisofs.c for that,
> i have to confess.)
>
> > > With overwriteables i write the first
It's just that last- and first-session mounts will be
equivalent.
Apparently we have to rewind the discussion a bit, because there is one
thing I said/implied that was *wrong*. Sorry. Rewind backwards to the
question about if BD-R is like DVD+R. I said "yes, with POW twist" and
then discussi
Hi,
> It would appear that dvd+rw-format has never been able to format a BD-R
> That would mean that when I did it the last time, I used growisofs which
> itself performs a format
Still questionable whether there is enough
difference between both FORMAT commands to
explain the difference in succ
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Unfortunately it has been about two years since
I created this disc.
Did you test whether your burner is still able to
format a BD-R to default spare size ?
No, I haven't done it again, I'm trying not to throw away *too* many of
these darn expensive discs.
It would app
Hi,
> It's just that last- and first-session mounts will be
> equivalent.
Yes. And thus the real first session will not
be mountable because its volume descriptors
are overwritten.
> First session effectively grows and it has nothing to do with drive
> recognizing multi-session.
So you leave th
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Customer Service <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
He used a very old cdrecord to read the data and for this reason,
the mail did not include all information
My cdrecord reports that it is build 2.01.01a33.
The latest version is a53
> But doesn't the POW gesture make session 1
> unmountable as soon as a further session
> is recorded ?
??? Why should it? It's just that last- and first-session mounts will be
equivalent.
> Even on a drive which would recognize and
> handle multi-session ?
First session effectively grows and it
Hi,
> It is as if
> it burned up to the scratch, hopped over it, and started burning again.
Eww. Do we know how Logical Block Addresses
map to real dye spots geometrically ?
That's not in MMC. Unless one could assume that
the "Physical Adresses" really form a simple
chain of media imprints. But i
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
Matt Schulte wrote:
I don't mean to say that it located the
bad spot before hand.
I understood your report of yesterday that there
is a visible difference on the surface of the
recorded media caused by the scratch.
(Like a ring of different reflectivity or so.)
This
Hi,
> Yes, but with optional +POW twist (see my Blu-ray page).
Plus the code of your tools :))
But doesn't the POW gesture make session 1
unmountable as soon as a further session
is recorded ?
Even on a drive which would recognize and
handle multi-session ?
Accessing older sessions is helpful w
> Is my impression right that their sequential
> personality is much like DVD+R ?
Yes, but with optional +POW twist (see my Blu-ray page).
> My understanding from specs is that it is Defect
> Management. I.e. the drive will write a portion
> of its buffer to media. Then it will checkread as
> lon
Hi,
Matt Schulte wrote:
> I don't mean to say that it located the
> bad spot before hand.
I understood your report of yesterday that there
is a visible difference on the surface of the
recorded media caused by the scratch.
(Like a ring of different reflectivity or so.)
This would have indicated
Andy:
I sent you a couple of messages off the list, did you get them?
Matt Schulte
Commtech, Inc.
Voice: 316-636-1131
Fax: 316-636-1163
http://www.commtech-fastcom.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Customer Service <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > He used a very old cdrecord to read the data and for this reason,
> > the mail did not include all information
> My cdrecord reports that it is build 2.01.01a33.
The latest version is a53. a33 is from August 2007
Jörg
--
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
My understanding from specs is that it is Defect
Management. I.e. the drive will write a portion
of its buffer to media. Then it will checkread as
long as the data is still in the buffer. If a read
error occurs, then it will take relocation measures
and write the content aga
Joerg Schilling wrote:
The way I understand the problem, you will not get benefits from
setting up spare areas for a BD-R that is written in a single shot.
Jörg
That would be the wrong way to look at the problem. If you burn in the
mode that is "Live Verify" it will absolutely make a differ
Joerg Schilling wrote:
He used a very old cdrecord to read the data and for this reason,
the mail did not include all information
My cdrecord reports that it is build 2.01.01a33.
Exactly what version do you think I should be using?
Matt Schulte
Commtech, Inc.
Voice: 316-636-1131
Fax: 316-636-1
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Indeed. I was not aware of that.
Did you post the "READ FORMAT CAPACITIES:"
of a dvd+rw-mediainfo run on such a media ?
NO, but if you'd like to see it, here it is.
Matt Schulte
Commtech, Inc.
Voice: 316-636-1131
Fax: 316-636-1163
http://www.commtech-fastcom.com
INQUIRY:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
maybe you missed the _point_ of the riddle
Indeed. I was not aware of that.
Did you post the "READ FORMAT CAPACITIES:"
He used a very old cdrecord to read the data and for this reason,
the mail did not include all information
That may be, but it also did not
Hi,
Andy Polyakov wrote:
> BD-R[E] format capacity descriptors are more like guidelines.
> Specification permits you to specify any value between minimum and maximum
> ...
> Indeed, here is output for media formatted with -ssa=4G:
Thanks for the info.
It will be very interesting to explore BD-R a
Releases turned to be feature driven lately and as no new features were
required (e.g. HD-DVD was dismissed) I had no immediate plans so far.
But as option to specify TDMA allocation is of apparent interest, it
might be appropriate to consider release in foreseeable future, i.e.
from week to month
When it is finished you can definitely tell where the burn approached the
scratch and kind of skipped over it and moved to the next viable area.
Interesting. How did it know in advance where the
bad sectors are before trying to write to them ?
But how did you manage to engage Defect Management ?
maybe you missed the _point_ of the riddle
Indeed. I was not aware of that.
Did you post the "READ FORMAT CAPACITIES:"
of a dvd+rw-mediainfo run on such a media ?
I remember to have seen some which report
"unformatted" as state and offer some
formatting descriptors. (None with 4 GB,
though.)
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > maybe you missed the _point_ of the riddle
>
> Indeed. I was not aware of that.
> Did you post the "READ FORMAT CAPACITIES:"
He used a very old cdrecord to read the data and for this reason,
the mail did not include all information.
Jörg
-
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > When it is finished you can definitely tell where the burn approached the
> > scratch and kind of skipped over it and moved to the next viable area.
>
> Interesting. How did it know in advance where the
> bad sectors are before trying to writ
Hi,
> maybe you missed the _point_ of the riddle
Indeed. I was not aware of that.
Did you post the "READ FORMAT CAPACITIES:"
of a dvd+rw-mediainfo run on such a media ?
I remember to have seen some which report
"unformatted" as state and offer some
formatting descriptors. (None with 4 GB,
though
Hi,
> When it is finished you can definitely tell where the burn approached the
> scratch and kind of skipped over it and moved to the next viable area.
Interesting. How did it know in advance where the
bad sectors are before trying to write to them ?
But how did you manage to engage Defect Mana
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
When it is finished you can definitely tell where the burn approached the
scratch and kind of skipped over it and moved to the next viable area.
Interesting. How did it know in advance where the
bad sectors are before trying to write to them ?
But how did you manage
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
As for Matt's idea with the scratch demo:
I have DVDs which look like an ice stadium
and they work perfectly. Others have no scratch
and they failed to verify after one or two burns.
One can hardly drill holes without endangering the
drive. But how about a few dots with a b
Andy Polyakov wrote:
Releases turned to be feature driven lately and as no new features were
required (e.g. HD-DVD was dismissed) I had no immediate plans so far.
But as option to specify TDMA allocation is of apparent interest, it
might be appropriate to consider release in foreseeable future, i
Hi,
Andy Polyakov wrote:
> The real problem is that we don't
> know how TDMA is used exactly
To be heretic:
Did anybody see Defect Management work with
any type of media (MRW, DVD-RAM, BD-RE, BD-R)
in a way that is not worse than a plain bad block ?
My experience is with DVD-RAM and there the
a
>> The source code change mentioned in originating post is correct and
>> will be included [though in modified form] to next dvd+rw-tools update.
> Great, any idea when you are planning your next release?
Releases turned to be feature driven lately and as no new features were
required (e.g. HD-DVD
Andy Polyakov wrote:
The source code change mentioned in originating post is correct and
will be included [though in modified form] to next dvd+rw-tools update.
Great, any idea when you are planning your next release?
This I can't reproduce. In other words I managed to format BD-R disc
with -ss
Joerg Schilling wrote:
OK, thank you.
BZW: it seems that the spare size if your other disk was not changed
Yes, that is kind of the problem. dvd+rw-format doesn't seem to be
doing anything at all.
Matt Schulte
Commtech, Inc.
Voice: 316-636-1131
Fax: 316-636-1163
http://www.commtech-fastcom.
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
I assume you have disabled all automounters and
similar programs which could access the drive.
So this could come from the device driver trying
to learn about the present media.
In the embedded 2.4.32 install, there is no automounter. Nothing
happens unless I explicitly ru
I am trying to make the spare area of a BD-R be something larger than
the default. I was hoping to run something like:
./dvd+rw-format -ssa=4G /dev/dvd
But when I execute this command, it says that it is invalid for the
detected media.
This is not intentional. In other words it's a bug and it
Andy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is bullshit. If you write to the media as it was at that moment, it
If you like to be taken for serious, it would be apropriate to use a less
offensive language.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL
Customer Service <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > OK, so this medium holds 200704 spare sectors. I am not sure whether this
> > is the default or whether this is a result of a format call.
> >
> > BTW: Is this a Philips Medium?
> >
> > Jörg
> >
> Attached is the output of cd
Hi,
> That particular error message was being printed by a very pared down 2.4.32
That should be young enough to run the drive
anyway. But my 2.4 kernels never reported
errors directly to the user space terminal.
The errors reported are probably due to the
uninitialized status of the BD-R.
> N
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
I can by no means find a potential origin of
that message in dvd+rw-tools. Nor would my
local Linux kernel print me these messages
Did you already tell what operating system and
version you use ? (I assume "sr0" is Linux
That particular error message was being printed by a
>>> Sorry, please add a -v
>>> this should give you the formatted capacity list in addition.
>>>
>> As you wish...
>>
>> I am not sure whether you guys like attachments or whether you want
>> things inline, so I just attached it.
>
>
> OK, so this medium holds 200704 spare sectors.
This is bul
Hi,
> > > sr0: CDROM (ioctl) error, command: Test Unit Ready 00 00 00 00 00
> > > Deferred sr00:00: sense key Medium Error
> > This does not look as if it was from dvd+tools but
> > rather from the kernel. Do you see that in a log file
> This actually shows up in the log as well as on the terminal
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
./dvd+rw-format -ssa=4G /dev/dvd
But when I execute this command, it says that it is invalid for the
detected media.
|| (mmc_profile != 0x12 && mmc_profile != 0x43 &&mmc_profile !=
0x41 && ssa) )
After making the above change, it then gets past this portion
If i get
Joerg Schilling wrote:
OK, so this medium holds 200704 spare sectors. I am not sure whether this
is the default or whether this is a result of a format call.
BTW: Is this a Philips Medium?
Jörg
Attached is the output of cdrecord -v -minfo on a
fresh-from-the-cellophane BD-R.
Yes, these are
Customer Service <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, please add a -v
> > this should give you the formatted capacity list in addition.
> >
> > Jörg
> As you wish...
>
> I am not sure whether you guys like attachments or whether you want
> things inline, so I just attached it.
OK, so this med
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Customer Service <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Can it be that the BD-R was already treated with
a format command previously ?
MMC-5 4.5.3.5 "BD-R Recording Models" says
" Once the recording mode has been esta
Customer Service <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Can it be that the BD-R was already treated with
> >> a format command previously ?
> >> MMC-5 4.5.3.5 "BD-R Recording Models" says
> >> " Once the recording mode has been
Andy Polyakov wrote:
This is not intentional. In other words it's a bug and it will be looked
into. Suggested code modification might be appropriate, but I'd rather
not say it without double-checking. In a course of few days. Meanwhile
please submit dvd+rw-mediainfo output (even garbled one you
You indicated it's BDB2 firmware? Is it latest? We both know that there
is BZE6 available for SW-5582. Do you know how they number their
releases? For example is BZxx later than BDxx? What I'm implying
firmware upgrade might be due to make it work with arbitrary ... Cheers. A.
I completely forg
Hi, Matt!
> I'm monkeying around with the blu-ray drives again (though now it is a
> SATA interface) and I've come upon something that I don't quite
> understand.
>
> I am trying to make the spare area of a BD-R be something larger than
> the default. I was hoping to run something like:
>
> ./d
Joerg Schilling wrote:
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can it be that the BD-R was already treated with
a format command previously ?
MMC-5 4.5.3.5 "BD-R Recording Models" says
" Once the recording mode has been established,
it is not changeable."
This is why I asked him to run
Joerg Schilling wrote:
What does cdrecord -minfo show for this medium?
Hello, I'm at a different email address, but it's still me.
So here is the cdrecord -minfo output:
Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 2.01.01a33 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C)
1995-2007 Jörg Schilling
Using libscg version 'sc
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can it be that the BD-R was already treated with
> a format command previously ?
> MMC-5 4.5.3.5 "BD-R Recording Models" says
> " Once the recording mode has been established,
> it is not changeable."
This is why I asked him to run cdrecord -minfo
Hi,
> ./dvd+rw-format -ssa=4G /dev/dvd
> But when I execute this command, it says that it is invalid for the
> detected media.
> || (mmc_profile != 0x12 && mmc_profile != 0x43 &&mmc_profile !=
> 0x41 && ssa) )
> After making the above change, it then gets past this portion
If i get the code
"Matt Schulte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm monkeying around with the blu-ray drives again (though now it is a
> SATA interface) and I've come upon something that I don't quite
> understand.
What does cdrecord -minfo show for this medium?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schill
I'm monkeying around with the blu-ray drives again (though now it is a
SATA interface) and I've come upon something that I don't quite
understand.
I am trying to make the spare area of a BD-R be something larger than
the default. I was hoping to run something like:
./dvd+rw-format -ssa=4G /dev/d
65 matches
Mail list logo
